Results tagged “Conservative” from Bill's Words

A “pretty shameful day for Washington”? No. Our founders would be proud.

This is the way Washington was designed to work. The Executive branch shouldn’t get its way just because it wants it. Instead, the system of checks and balances ensures that the will of the elected one doesn’t override the will of the elected many.

So go stomp your feet, cry, throw a temper-tantrum, and vow to defeat the Constitution using some end-around play, but this is the way it’s supposed to be.

Three.

|

We will mourn the dead—the two who have died. An innocent child. A bystander.

It’s sad for all of us.

We will not, however, mourn the 40 people who were murdered during the last 24 hours. We will not, however, mourn the 90 people who died in auto accidents in the last 24 hours.

And we certainly will not hear of the 3,000+ abortions provided yesterday.

What has this country come to that the deaths of 3,130 people is mundane? Why are we not remembering these deaths as a tragedy as well? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the gut-wrenching reaction of our media over these deaths, the same media who are ignoring the outrageous tragedy of Kermit Gosnell’s war on life?

I don’t discount the tragic nature of these two deaths. Their deaths are truly tragic. Every life is precious and worth being sorrowful for the loss thereof. But so, too, are the deaths of the other 3,130.

Let’s mourn them all, shall we?

If you haven’t read of the horrors of Kermit Gosnell, an unlicensed doctor performing late-term baby-killing abortions, then don’t be surprised. The liberal media has determined that you don’t need to know about it. Don’t click if you have a weak stomach.

“But Bill!” you say. “I thought late-term baby-killing abortions are illegal! Why did he perform them?”

To which I reply, “This is the same mentality that gun control advocates have. ‘If we ban scary weapons, they won’t exist and kids will be safer!’”

As my friend Darren would say, Good luck with that.

Where are the conservatives? Where’s one single voice of reason?

“There’s no immediate debt crisis, Boehner says, agreeing with Obama” - latimes.com

We may as well give up. This is ridiculous.

So true:

Public debate in Washington has deteriorated into Sesame Street sing-a-longs.

Whereas “We [will] take real steps to make our kids and our communities safer”;1 and

Whereas media and the entertainment industries play a central role in glorifying the violence in our society, in popularizing the violence being exhibited in our schools, and in making combatting this problem nearly impossible anywhere other than the front lines; and

Whereas student populations in schools cannot possibly be protected by signs declaring schools to be “gun free zones”; and

Whereas gun controls have been shown to be largely, if not completely, ineffective in stemming the tide of gun-related deaths;2 and

Whereas the most effective means of protecting our school children is likely to be armed personnel stationed in the schools; and

Whereas the Connecticut state budget is already stretched to the limits and cannot withstand the costs of armed guards in all schools;3 and

Whereas the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire have found that state troopers are a costly requirement at road construction sites;4 and

Whereas the guarding function at a road construction site does not require the deterrence of an armed person:

Now, therefore, be it therefore resolved that armed Connecticut State Troopers shall be moved to schools as part of their regular duties in an undercover capacity where they will provide a deterrent to would-be assassins.

Be it further resolved that the troopers shall rotate among the schools in a secret and random fashion unknown to all but the principal; and

Be it further resolved that the troopers shall visit classrooms and demonstrate upright moral behavior and be good role models for our children such that would-be assassins will never know when a well-trained, armed individual with legal and moral authority to eliminate threats to our children may be present within a school with the sole purpose of doing bodily harm to said threat.

Sounds about right to me.


1 Gov. Dannel Malloy as quoted by the Newtown Patch

2Cato institute

3Common knowledge

4A Better Framingham

Conservatives are giving Al Gore a hard time for selling Current TV to the oil barons of Al Jazeera for $500M because it’s hypocrisy. Al’s other real hypocrisies aside (the jet, the mansions, etc.), I think he’s trying to do the right thing by selling the oil barons a steaming pile of nothing+ for $500M.

If he takes their money and gives them nothing in return, hasn’t he helped his so-called “global warming initiative”?


+ I suppose you’ve watched Current TV? No? I rest my case.

I love Ben Stein. You should read his latest missive in its entirety.

The men and women who sacrifice for us — military, police, prosecutors, fire fighters, teachers, nurses, parents — are the bedrock of the nation — and the military wife is the backbone of the entire free world.

Amen to that, Mr. Stein.

Ω On Unions and Right to Work

|

In a right to work state, unions are not illegal.

In a right to work state, collective bargaining is not illegal.

In a right to work state, strikes are not illegal, either.

In a right to work state, no employee may be required to be a member of a union to hold a job.

In a right to work state, right to work laws are neither pro-union nor anti-union.

You can still have a job. The union just has to prove its value to you—just like any other organization. And if the union is a good deal, then you’ll gladly and willingly join.

Congratulations, Michigan.

⚡ vs Ω

|

Like other bloggers, I like the style of linkblogging which John Gruber has perfected with DaringFireball.net. While we don’t see eye-to-eye regarding politics, he’s insightful when it come to Apple and tech. Unfortunately, I got tired of the politics’ slipping into what was a tech blog, so I stopped reading it. (Me? I mix tech and politics and religion and everything else. With that kind of variety, chances are I’ll offend one or two of my 18 readers thereby losing 10% of my readership every week.)

When John wrote a long piece, he used a star in the title to denote that it was all-original material and not just a link with commentary. Shawn Blanc of ShawnBlanc.net—and presumably others—have adopted this style as well. So have I.

For a while, I’d been using the ⚡ lightning bolt, but when I watched Downfall last night, I realized it was just too close to the Nazi’s lightning bolts. Even though the bolts are ostensibly used for high-voltage danger signs everywhere, and even though I’m an electrical engineer, I thought I should change to something else. (Hitler ruined not only the lightning bolts but the cookie duster mustache as well.)

So I chose the Greek capital omega, Ω. It’s the symbol used in a play on words for the unit of electrical resistance, the Ohm. (I’ve always been somewhat resistant to things—especially the current federal administration.) And it’s also the last letter of the Greek alphabet, a symbol which Christians use (along with the alpha) to represent Christ (see Rev. 1:8). Electrical engineer and Christian that I am, it seemed like a good symbol for my long-form pieces.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t have quite the visual impact of DaringFireball’s star or ShawnBlanc’s plus. But I like it.

I shut off Facebook and Twitter for the foreseeable future. It didn’t take long after the elections for most of the political rhetoric on Facebook an Twitter to settle down, but the Office Christmas Party Protocol continues to face formidable opposition from the most stalwart supporters of one party or another.

Given that I have been in a funk about the changing nature of this country and its citizens recently, I decided I’d had enough. Certainly, I’d broken the OCPP, too, adding to the noise. And that’s what it was: purposeless noise. Even the non-political content is as Dennis Miller described Twitter posts: “annotated burps.” I couldn’t say it any better.

The silence has been wonderful.

[This is the last political entry I intend to post on this site. I don’t have a lot of readers, I don’t have a lot of time, and I don’t get paid for my effort. I’ve only ever heard from one of my recent readers—and that’s OK!—and I don’t think that my voice does much but add to the noise. Might I recommend The American Spectator for superb conservative political commentary? I’ll continue to publish computing and thought pieces, but this election cycle has made me tired of national politics. WNE]

Dear Mr. Obama,

Your victory speech was elegant as always; you have the gift of the gab, truly. You used some words that I expect you to live up to lest they fall onto the heap of broken promises of your first term. These words were, “…whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard…”

Though you may have heard, my question to you, Mr. Obama, is Were you listening?

If you were listening, then what you heard is your country’s saying:

Stop letting the mainstream media do your work for you. If you are a man, if you are a leader, then you should be able to convey the message you intend the country to hear without having the likes of Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews covering for you. Let them do their job. Let them be critical of you. Stop trading access for control of the narrative. Let the people hear the truth through Jefferson’s independent fourth estate. Man up.

You’ll make mistakes. Own up to them. The rest of us have to live with the consequences of your errors, so why don’t you? Stop letting the media cover for your mistakes. Man up.

Your way isn’t necessarily the best way. Your long-held socialist beliefs are not what the country wants. You, the liberal elite, Hollywood, and their ilk certainly want this nation to become a nation of redistribution. But it’s time you listen to other sides of the story. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan do have a plan which could work, but you’ll have to listen to them, to avoid letting your own biases block the path “forward.” It takes guts to listen to, respect and incorporate the other side’s points of view. Man up.

Vilification of the rich is great for short term political gain, but divides the country. I have yet to understand why the “poor” hate the job-creating “rich” but worship the do-nothing Hollywood elite, why George Clooney is revered, but Linda McMahon is reviled. If you want the “rich” on your side—and by your own admission, you must have the rich to fund your spending machine—stop pissing them off. Stop dividing the country with artificial class warfare. Unify.

Speaking of warfare, listen to this:

Stop creating artificial wars. Your “war on women” is a prime example of rhetoric for the sake of inflaming your supporters. It does nothing but push your supporters and your detractors further apart. It does not build consensus. Build consensus.

Get to work. 10 weeks of golf. Celebrity basketball games. Bragging about your beer recipe. All of these are great past-times and would be great features on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But for a sitting President, they are inappropriate. You used your first term to prove that you’re just a regular Joe who is somehow privileged enough to hang out with stars and celebrities. Now get to work and do the job you were elected to do. Attend those briefings. Learn a work ethic befitting a president.

Strengthen this country’s defense. I do not believe it to be any coincidence that you and Bill Clinton ushered in horrific terrorist attacks. You must ensure that the world of terrorists does not see your peacemaking overtures (or whatever it is you’re doing) to the world of Arabs as indication that the US is soft on terrorism. Declaring that Al Qeada is dead does not make it so. Put ears on the ground in-country and build intel that we can use to hunt down and kill terrorists. Prevent attacks, and when warned of imminent attacks, pay attention, dammit.

Stop governing with czars and edicts. You are not a dictator, and you have no right to dictate. Only a complacent Congress has allowed this abhorrent mangling of checks and balances to continue. Do your job right.

Clean house. Your Vice-President is not a “happy warrior”—he’s the punch line to many jokes. He’s making a mockery of his office and acts the fool. Likewise, you have a staff containing tax evaders and cheats; I imagine that there are others with less-than-stellar records, too. Remove these people from office and put well-respected, well-vetted and centrist (mostly because neither the left nor the right will approve a radical of either extreme) people in front of Congress and into those jobs.

“It’s the economy, stupid.” Worry about social programs after the economy is fixed. Until we have a working economy, you can’t afford social programs. Your credit card is maxed out, and our house is so far underwater that our great-grandchildren will have no place to live in if you continue at the torrid pace you set during your first term. China is not our friend. Manufacturers must be encouraged to bring business back on shore. Likewise, stop picking winners. You clearly demonstrated that the government has no business in investing in technological fantasies, that “more money” doesn’t equate to “success.” You want to make good on that balanced budget thing? First, stop spending so you know how much you need to take in. Then tax. If you do it the other way around, you’ll never get what you need, the economy will continue to stagnate, and more generations will drown.

Innovate. If the private sector can figure out ways to manufacture items more efficiently, to break the laws of nature, to avoid paying taxes, to find new ways of doing old things better, then why can’t government? It’s because we’re asking politicians, not problem-solving experts, to fix the problems. Bring in experts from industry. Bring in the brilliant minds. Ignore their party affiliation. Leave the Hollywood elites at home. Let the brilliant people of this country solve the problems we face, because solve it they will… if you’ll let them.

Now hear this: Your victory wasn’t quite “decisive” as the mainstream media are so quick to report. No, you won through the grace of the Electoral College. The fact that you won by a thinner margin of the vote this time means that more people are listening, learning, and understanding the deficiencies of hiring a community organizer to do the job of a world leader. Unfortunately, not enough understood this problem and the net result is you get four more years to make good on the promises of your “one term proposition.”

For the rest of us who did understand, we are left praying first for our families, then for our country, and then for you and the rest of our elected leaders. Because in spite of the “us” and “them” rhetoric you bludgeon us with each day, we are all in this together.

Sincerely yours,

/Bill/

William N. Eccles

Ω NYC Shockers!

|

In the news, the NYC Marathon was cancelled. Wow, talk about your last-minute reversals.

Bad news for Obama, though: I hear Bloomberg will be changing his endorsement to Romney on Tuesday evening.

(Bloomberg’s always giving us the runaround. Now he’s running around in flip-flops.)

“My message to the governors as well as to the mayors is anything they need, we will be there, and we will cut through red tape,” Mr. Obama said. “We are not going to get bogged down with a lot of rules.”

We’ve had a few natural disasters during your presidency, Mr. Obama, and yet you still have not streamlined the government and eliminate the red tape you vow to “cut through.” Why not? It’s because your solution is typical of liberals: Make government bigger, trying to cure the symptom instead of solving the problem.

Obamacare is a prime example. It does not do anything to address the basic problems of health care costs, instead trying to find ways either to pay inflated costs or to force costs to be lower with magic, all the while increasing demand for health care without adequately addressing supply. Obamacare is nearly 2,000 pages of legislation which sticks a BandAid on the patient’s knee instead of trying to figure out why the patient has cancer in the first place.

If red tape can be cut through, don’t just cut through it: get rid of it.

Ω Journalistic Integrity? Dead.

|

I posted a link to an article called A Guide to the Obama Administration’s Five Major Scandals for Mainstream Media Dummies on Facebook. Yes, I know, I broke the Office Christmas Party Protocol, and I wasn’t sure exactly sure at the time why I posted it.

I finally put my finger on it: As much as I believe this article does indeed portray an unfortunate level of comfort this administration has with being a corruptocracy, I believe it’s as much—if not more so—an indictment of the media for its consistent failure to investigate with unbiased zeal the misdeeds and missteps of our political establishment. We can no longer rely on the press to investigate the very government which it is supposed to protect us from.

The media used to be equal-opportiunity haters. All politicians hated them because they were relentless in their pursuit of the deepest, darkest misdeeds of all politicians. They did this task out of a sense of journalistic responsibility, of integrity, and of a need to sell papers.

No more, however, is the free press independent, nor is the independent press free.

To the first half of the preceding statement, and by far the worst part of this problem, the media is letting their work be done by the very branches of the government from which they are supposed to be independent. When the President’s staff gets veto power over statements the press is planning on publishing, the press cannot possibly be the objective fourth estate we need.1

And independence means not only independence from the government, but independence to have opinions and findings different from others. The mere existence of the JournoList and the collusion thereon is indicative that this level of independence is dead.2 News organizations which do not toe the party line are called out as radical regardless of how much truth there may be to their stories.

I suppose that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights give the press the right to collude and write the narrative and to spin the data however they like. But the result is that Americans don’t trust the media to do their job at all, as discovered in a recent Gallup poll.3

I’m not alone in this concern. Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell said, “We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.”4

Quite frankly, I do not understand, given the death of the American newspaper, why journalists are so unwilling to investigate this administration. Controversy sells papers, after all. Maybe it’s cost cutting. Maybe it’s a group decision to support this president because there’s something in it for the media that I just can’t figure out—other than outright access, that is. On that subject, The Guardian says “It is pure ‘access journalism’: these reporters are given scoops in exchange for their wholly unjustified promise to allow government officials to propagandize the citizenry without accountability (that is, from behind the protective shield of anonymity). By necessity, their journalistic storytelling is shaped by the perspective of these official sources.”5 If people on the other side of the pond can see what’s going on so very clearly, I can’t help but wonder why we’re so blind to what’s happening within our own borders.

Finally, when the polls are intentionally skewed to reflect the beliefs and leanings of their publishers, as have past media polls6, I believe all the journalistic integrity which decades’ worth of reporters before them have gone to the ends of the earth to build is thoroughly and completely dead.

Given the media’s inability to provide any checks or balances on this administration, I would much rather there be a different administration in place, one in which the media are actively committed and doggedly interested in exposing the government’s misdeeds. That’s a media I could respect.


1 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/latest-word-on-the-campaign-trail-i-take-it-back.html?_r=0

2 http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

3 http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx

4 http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/

5 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/obama-administration-making-us-media-its-mouthpiece

6 http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/25/how-carter-beat-reagan/print

Guess what? Obama preserved his voting bloc in one defense contractor’s workers.

But is it even what’s best for the workers? That depends on your point of view.

If it’s 2012 and you’re the current Obama administration, then it’s good. On January 2, if the Pentagon cancels contracts and thousands of workers are laid off, then they might say that it was to the workers’ benefits because they didn’t have to “needlessly worry” about the layoff. President Obama’s administration think’s it’s good.

But if it’s 2007 and you were then-Senator Obama who co-sponsored the Forewarn Act which upped the warning in the WARN Act to 90 days and expanded the number of companies affected by it, then it’s certainly bad. These workers could get zero notice. And that’s bad. Really bad. Then-Senator Obama thought it was bad.

And they say Mitt Romney flip-flops… Where’s Obama’s confidence in his voters in this runaway election?

(Background story here.)

Legally, no. No, this administration can’t legally influence the elections.

But that hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from trying and, apparently, succeeding. Kathleen Sebelius got away with it, so what’s stopping the whole Labor Department?

Here’s the lowdown as I understand it:

Congress raised the debt ceiling last summer, in August of 2011, and instead of giving the President carte blanche, the GOP attached a proviso that raising the debt ceiling would require a corresponding cuts in Federal spending. If cuts didn’t meet the requirement, an automatic $1.2 trillion cut called the sequester would slam into Federal spending on January 1, 2012, with an additional $1 trillion by 2021.

Needless to say, the so-called “supercomittee” in charge of finding these cuts failed miserably. As a result, on January 1, 2012, across-the-board spending cuts will take effect on every Federal program there is. Essentially, the sequester is one big frickin’ stick and was supposed to encourage Congress (under the “leadership” of the President) to pass a budget with real spending reforms in it. They failed, so both parties will continue blaming the other and life in Washington, D.C., will continue to move “forward” as it has during these last four years. Little changes.

As the phrase goes, “in other news” there are clauses written into the WARN Act (which is unrelated legislation) which say that any government contractor who will have massive layoffs has to notify the affected workers 60 days in advance of the layoff. If they don’t then there are fines and legal proceedings involved. I.e., breaking the law is bad.

Coincidentally, 60 days before sequestration layoffs is November 2, four days before election day.

You might be thinking that this is intentional timing, that whoever put two and two together might have been thinking that Congress shouldn’t be the only ones to take the blame, that the sitting President might need to share some blame, too. You’d probably be right, and the Obama administration would agree with you.

In fact, the Obama administration recognizes that blame sharing is bad, so much so that that the Obama administration is offering to cover the legal fees, court costs, and employee compensation for companies who ignore the law and do not notify affected workers.

“Go ahead! Break the law! It’s OK, we’ll cover you no matter what!”—to paraphrase loosely. “Just don’t tell those workers they might get laid off. It might be viewed as a failure on the part of the President, and we don’t want that.

Distilled to the bare facts, the Obama administration is influencing voting with taxpayer money.

Oh, sure, they’re doing this under the guise of not scaring workers (read “potential Obama voters”), saying that there’s a chance (read “snowball’s chance in hell”) the sequester might not happen, so why bother? And unless somebody turns up E-mails to the contrary (read “unless there was an idiot who took notes”), that’s the story the mainstream media will use to sweep these misdeeds under the rug.

If you don’t believe me, simply Google “sequester layoffs” and see just how many mainstream media outlets are covering the story. I’ll save you the trouble. It’s…

zero.

And our media claim not to be biased? Yeah, right.

If this action doesn’t make you sick to your stomach, you’re not paying attention, and you’ll likely vote for the wrong person—and his administration—in November.

Nobama. Can’t say it any more succinctly than that.

Charlie Crist, apparently still off his meds:

“I applaud and share [Obama’s] vision of a future built by a strong and confident middle class in an economy that gives us the opportunity to reap prosperity through hard work and personal responsibility,” said Crist, in an op-ed published in the Tampa Bay Times.

Wait, what? Is he endorsing the same guy who said, “It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. blah blah blah …you didn’t build it. blah blah blah”? Is he endorsing the same guy who gutted the workfare requirement of welfare?

Obama doesn’t even begin to understand “personal responsibility.” In his view, if the government isn’t responsible for your prosperity, then nobody is.

via MM

Chock full of data and explanation, such as:

In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital-gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans assumed 18 percent of the income-tax burden. Today, with a top income-tax rate of 35 percent and a capital-gains rate of 15 percent, their share is 39 percent, more than twice as much. This is true because, faced with high tax rates, the rich of 40 years ago put more of their income into tax shelters or foreign countries. They invested less, and they worked less. And the rest of us suffered during the years of stagflation—as we will again, if rates are raised.

Read the rest of this article by Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

If you think this year’s presidential election is about anything other than the economy, you’ve been listening to the Democrats too long.

Recent Comments