Social Engineering And A Waste Of Taxpayer Money
Apr 22, 2011 Political
This video from 2009 involves members of Congress and the regime discussing the economic recovery plan (the stimulus) and how it should be spent. The video has comments inserted which are appropriate and worthy of discussion.
Notice how these folks are discussing how to spend our money and that the concern is that skilled white construction workers will get the jobs building bridges. The discussion is how to ensure people who might not have any skills get some of the recovery money. A video comment asks why don’t we hire the best people to build the bridge regardless of what color they are?
And excellent point except the stimulus money was not designed to stimulate the economy, it was designed to pay off political friends and to engage in social welfare. These people don’t care if bridges actually get built (have any been built) and they don’t care that bridges which might get built are built by people who are less skilled or unskilled so long as the money goes to minorities and other “disadvantaged” people.
Charlie Rangel starts discussing the flow of money and how the federal government is impeded by the pesky state legislatures. He says they need to come up with some method to bypass all that and force the states to take the money. This is how states get federal money with all kinds of strings attached. Robert Reich then says that it needs to be presented to governors and they can either sign or not but to hold them accountable.
In the end, Rangle assures everyone they will not have to worry about the middle class objecting because they will be too worried about putting food on the table and clothing their children.
In other words, don’t be concerned about the middle class. They will be too busy working to make ends meet to notice the social engineering taking place at the federal level with their hard earned money.
I guess Rangel was wrong. Looks like a lot of the middle class did pay attention and showed that in the 2010 election.
This is the goal of Democrats and particularly this regime. They want to redistribute wealth and they want to spend money on social programs under the guise of stimulating the economy.
Our families will have to drive over the bridges built by the least skilled workers.
Well, that sort of makes sense. This country (and by extension our families) is being led by the least skilled among us…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: charlie rangel, communism, lies, robert reich, social engineering, socialism, stimulus
Straight Down The Middle
May 22, 2009 Political
Justice David Souter retires in June, at the end of the Supreme Court’s term for this year, and a new replacement for a Supreme Court Justice will be picked by Barama and his crew. A lot will be revealed by the choice of person he makes- will he/ she be an “activist”, a person who “champions the little people”? I expect so, although I will tell you why I think this is a bad idea.
First, a Judge is, by his/ her very nature, NOT supposed to favor any side in an argument, instead, relying on proper interpretation of the law to reach a reasoned decision. Any prejudice towards one side or the other, renders the Judge’s decision biased, and presupposes a predetermined position, in which case a responsible Judge would and should recuse him/ herself from ANY decision.
In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Tara Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas- Austin, says, “Judges are not to be passive spectators; adjudication is an activity, calling for the exercise of careful, objective judgment. Appellate courts’ responsibility is to police the Constitution. The rhetoric of “activism” notwithstanding, the proper interpretation and application of our law cannot be reduced to a purely mechanical process. If it cold, we would be replacing Justice Souter with a computer.”
Neither can these justices MAKE law- the best they can do is to interpret the laws that the legislators draft, in order that they conform to the Constitution- a hard job in and of itself, and made infinitely harder by the leading (some would say EXTREMELY MISLEADING) words inserted into various bills, designed to cause the reader of the bill to tilt for or against the content itself.
Some examples, “unfair methods”, “predatory pricing”, a “hostile or offensive work environment”, an “appropriate fair balance”, all of these terms and more are found in the content of actual bills, and the terms are put there to satisfy the constituencies that the lawmakers wish to appease, but these same terms make the job of Justices much harder, as the terms involve nothing related to law, but everything related to a specific perspective- something the Justices must not buy into, or their decisions are not true, but tainted.
Barama wants a Justice with “Empathy”- capital E- but as Tara Smith warns, it is not enough that the Justice must be an umpire, but also more than this in adjudicating law:
“In sports, umpires do not have a say in what the rules are. They are given a complete set of rules at the start of each season and charged to call the games accordingly. In the U.S. legal system, by contrast, courts are presented not only with the Constitution ( the fundamental rules of the game, as it were), but with specific laws made by legislatures, and by agencies of the executive branch (not to mention the court’s own precedents). The court’s responsibility is precisely to determine whether all of these purported laws are compatible with the Constitution, which is our ultimate legal standard.”
The route the court must navigate is fraught with dead ends and legal land mines, but in the end, what the court must determine is if these laws are indeed valid laws. In this sense, the Justices are more than umpires in that they have a say in determining these laws’ validity. The nine Justices, whatever their personal bias, cannot roll over and acquiesce to one side or the other- to do so would be gross dereliction of duty.
It is nice that Skinny B can consider a man, a woman, a Black, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever puts a tingle up his leg, but the one thing he absolutely should not do is to attempt to put an ideologue on the court with a built in agenda of social engineering. If he does this, the damage to the court could last a generation, at least, before common sense could purge the wrongful decisions made in the name of social engineering and activism.
There is no place for activism on the bench- if you want activism, hire a great attorney with passionate convictions to argue your case, but the Justices are supposed to interpret law, not be pre- disposed to one side or another. To not be neutral is to do this country an extreme disservice, bordering on traitorousness.
Let the judges judge.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activism, liberalism, social engineering, souter
Our Military Is Under Attack By The Left
Jan 16, 2009 Political
The United States Military is a uniformed service that requires skill and discipline and a willingness to put the team before the individual. I served for 24 years and had the opportunity to serve with some of the best people this country has to offer. Some of the people I served with were homosexuals who served under the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy instituted by Bill Clinton. They were great soldiers and great patriots. DADT worked because it prevented the distractions and problems of open homosexuality.
Barack Hussein Obama has vowed to end DADT and to allow homosexuals to openly serve. This is the case despite the reality that most homosexuals will not serve and despite the fact that a Military Times survey found that 24% of current service members would leave if open homosexuality were allowed. Of those, 10% would definitely leave and 14% would consider not reenlisting. 10% would equal the number of active duty Marines and 24% is close to the number of active duty soldiers in the Army. Those are significant numbers that will not be made up by homosexuals joining.
Obama owes the homosexual activists. He stated he was against gay marriage but the reality is that earlier in his (short) career he supported it. The opposition was likely some of that “campaign rhetoric” he discussed on ABC. Obama and the gay activists see this as equal rights or getting rid of discrimination but that is not what it is. The military is selective by necessity. Overweight people are either discharged or denied favorable actions. People without certain physical characteristics cannot hold certain jobs and women are not allowed in the combat arms. These are all necessary to accomplish the primary mission of defending this country.
About 75% of military members identify themselves as conservative. This is no surprise because very few liberals are willing to fight for anything. They would rather have others protect them while they protest the manner in which that protection is provided. That is all well and good but why do they have a say in how the military is handled? The majority of troops oppose homosexuality but only 24% of those would leave because of it. But how will openly gay members affect the military as a whole?
Perhaps things would be fine. Other countries have openly gay service members and they seem to do OK. However, those countries are much more liberal than ours and they have a different value system. People claim that soldiers in the Israeli Army don’t mind but what would it matter if they did? All people are compelled to serve so they really have no choice as to whom they serve with. Allowing homosexuals to serve ensures that those who do not want to serve are not able to use homosexuality as an excuse.
The military in this country is an all volunteer force. Despite the claims by the left that George Bush was going to institute the draft, that never happened. In fact, the only people who pushed for the draft were Democrats. George Bush and military leaders know that our military is much better with the highly skilled, all volunteer force we currently have. Newsflash to moonbats: Charlie Rangel is reintroducing his initiative to have a draft.
I have always been opposed to the draft because I feel it violates the Constitution. It also fills the ranks with people who do not want to be there and that is not the best way to accomplish our mission. Our government must have figured a way around the Constitution because we have the mechanism for a draft.
Regardless of how I feel about it, if Obama forces the military to accept openly gay people then every physically able person between the ages of 18 and 22 should be required to serve for 2 years. We should start with 22 year olds and work back until we hit the 18s and then service would be mandatory for all persons when they reach 18 (and have graduated or are out of high school). This will ensure that the homosexual community is adequately represented in the military and that we do not deplete the ranks in order to appease a few. After the 2 year assignment each person would be in the reserves, subject to recall AT ANY TIME, for four more years. This would solve the problem of multiple combat tours that the liberals are always complaining about. It could also rid places like Berkeley of the recruiter stations the moonbats so vehemently oppose.
My plan would include everyone and there would be no waivers for college (unless the college is a military academy) and all able bodied persons would be required to serve no matter what. This includes the children of rich people and politicians and failure to serve would be a felony punishable by 2 years in jail and 4 years of probation and loss of any type of government aid.
The military is not the place to try social experiments and allowing openly gay people to serve is either an experiment or an attempt to dismantle the Armed Forces by getting people to leave them. Since Obama is a Socialist who has surrounded himself with like minded people as well as those who want to allow Mexico to retake part of our country, it would not surprise me that he would work to dismantle the biggest obstacle to that goal.
So, now is the time to see how committed the homosexuals are. Do they still want openly gay people to be allowed to serve if the condition for it is mandatory service for all?
One other thing, if queers are allowed to openly serve they are not allowed to adopt the motto; “Never leave your buddy’s behind.”
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.[/tip]
Tags: gay, homsexual, Military, Obama, queer, social engineering