bobtheump

The obvious existence of a press bias for the liberal wing of the Democrat Party is past ranting a bout.  It simply is the fact.  But you would think that occasionally they would hit upon the obvious and report it.  When Bin Laden was killed the President identified the unit that accomplished the deed. People in the community of Special Operations were outraged at the breach of security protocol by the President just so he could identify himself with real heroes and bask in the reflected glory.

Rob Curtis, who writes the Gear Scout blog for Military Times, said…”It’s my feeling that the administration has aimed a spotlight into one of the darkest corners of our national security apparatus without regard for the damage it might do to its ongoing operations.”

Just a few months later and the same Seal Team suffers a historic and tragic loss in an attack on a helicopter suffering the loss of 22 Seals and several others.  And, no one is asking whether the President’s breach of security for purely political reasons got these men and women killed.  The main stream press outlets are not asking because the answer is all too obvious and all too disgusting.

I would like to know when it became the radical point of view in this country to insist that our government at least attempt to spend no more than it takes in.  I want to know when it became the moral act to spend my children’s, children’s, children’s money on programs for folks living now.  What trick of logic makes it reasonable that we are somehow acting honorably by leaving our children in debt?  What man or woman is anything but a failure when he saddles his children with an inheritance of servitude to a debt they did not create?What society is anything but morally bankrupt when it takes the rightful consequence of it’s bad acts and foists it upon innocents of the next generation?  How am I a terrorist for pointing out that spending my great-grandchildren’s money so the chronically unemployed in this generation can be comfortable is a criminal act?  The true crook in this scenario is the one gleefully spending other peoples money so they can feel good about themselves. The social engineers that spend our future away to buy good will and votes today are the embodiment of evil.  The rich barons of the ruling class in Washington who sob crocodile tears for the poor as they attend their $2500.00 a plate fundraisers and spend millions to get a job that pays thousands expect our adoration as they spend our children’s money on themselves.  Real men take their medicine and suffer the consequences of their actions. Our failure to police our elected officials and to pay our own way and to stand fast in our moral convictions mean we should be suffering the pains of our failures so our children and grand-children would not have to.  GM should have gone under and Fannie and Freddie as well and out of the ashes would have sprung new life and new opportunity.  But the liberals and progressives in our government did not have the balls to reap what they had sown. No, the cowards we elected of both parties stood up and crowed loudly about banks too big to fail and automotive companies that were too important to let go under. And to accomplish this feat of great self interest they have sacrificed our future for the present.  And when good men and women of sincere conscience stand up and hold these acts to the light of day they get called names; Names like racist and terrorist and rapist and worse by people who steal from our children.  Any elected official who has called a TEA Party person a jihadist or terrorist or member of the Hezbollah faction of the Republican party is a coward and a disgrace to his country.  And, that stands on top of being a morally reprehensible pig who has willingly indebted us all for generations to come.

The argument is once again hijacked by the left and the opposition simply lets them frame the argument with the language of the lefts choosing.  This time it is the argument over the debt ceiling and the “need” to raise taxes.  While it is obvious that this manufactured crisis is just the newest tool to use to attack the wealthy and raid their coffers, it is also a rare opportunity to actually educate some people if those with a voice will use it.  The left cries alligator tears claiming it is time for the rich to pay their fair share.  The fair share of the rich has been debated over and over and will be forever if the President has his way.  But in fact, how much any given person pays is meaningless.  What is at issue is raising revenues to the government to the level that will allow us to pay our way out of this ridiculous level of debt while still making possible to grow the future economies.   We are suffering from a manufactured banking and housing crisis because the liberals, Republican and Democrat, of the Congress in 2007 began spending like drunken Kennedy’s and refused the Bush administration’s request to properly regulate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and investment banks.  This was done to create short-term growth at the expense of the future and they went far too far.  Now we sit under crushing debt of our own foolish making and the only answer the left can come up with is that the rich aren’t paying enough taxes?  What is even more ridiculous is that the right counters the argument with statistics showing how much the rich already pay and blah blah blah…  The correct argument starts out with a simple question.  Do we play in a global economy?  If we do the functions of revenue are no different in taxation than in retail. If you tax companies and business owners at a rate that is higher than they would have to pay in another country or state they will go where there are lower costs.  That is not a question of “fair” contributions to the government any more than you can make the case that I should pay a higher price for paper to Staples when Office Depot has a much better deal.  Just because Staples may need more income because they overpay for the cost of goods and services at the wholesale level, I, nor you, are responsible for that mismanagement of resources.  The government needs cash to survive and the means of raising that money is now and always has been to compete with other nations to provide a hospitable environment for employment and investment.  Raising taxes on any group of people is inhospitable but to do so on the income class that actually has a choice as to where they can earn their money is foolish.  I own a small business that is in the business of providing services to much larger companies.  Those companies are in Texas now instead of Ohio because Ohio chased them away with high taxes and over regulation.  That is beginning to change but not nearly fast enough.  And, it is not only the large version of the small business that is leaving or has left.  It is the 5 to 25 employee firms that have no problem picking up and going elsewhere to live and work.  Those are the bulk of the high income earners that actually employ the bulk of people in any community.  Fast food restaurant start-ups slow down because the population wanders off and landscapers and plumbers and car dealers suffer.  And…tax revenues drop.  It does not make any difference what some rich guy pays in taxes if he can’t hire me to work on his small fleet of cars because then I don’t have any income on which to pay taxes  either.  The point being, raising taxes on the “rich” means less revenue for guys like me.  That means if you raise taxes on the “thems” of society who can choose to go away or withhold their investment capital until better opportunities arise it is actually the “me and you’s”  that get hurt.  And, again, tax revenues will drop.  If your political leader is telling you the rich don’t pay their “fare share” he or she is telling you in no uncertain terms that he or she has no idea how to solve our fiscal crisis.

I have avoided writing about this one because I am afraid I am not equipped to express myself properly and completely.  I love people.  I love people loving other people.  I think the impact of love on our world is the only saving grace.  I don’t think there is anything wrong with the love of two consenting adults and I don’t give a rat’s fanny if they happen to be of the same sex.  The power of love is a critical and unique force in the world and there is hardly a time when more of it could be considered a bad thing.  At the risk of sounding trite, I do have gay friends.  Or, at least, I know gay people to whom I offer my friendship.  (I would not want to speak for them.)  I hope they find in their partners that which completes them and that which will offer solace and succor for the entirety of their lives.  I have no doubt that whatever the genesis of the feelings, nature or nurture, the feelings are as real as the love I feel for my wife of nearly 27 years.  I would hope that every person capable of love gets to know a lifelong relationship with a person they love and that loves them back.  Love is a good thing.  It is the best thing.  It is not a reason to make laws.  More to the point love has no bearing on law.  And, legislating to accommodate love is, not only, not in the best interests of society it runs contrary to the general welfare.  Love and marriage are not the same things.  They have never been and never will be.  The legal standing of marriage in societies for as long as man has accepted laws from God and made his own has been because it is in the best interest of the state to have stable and long-lasting relationships between man and woman.  Most obviously it is in the interest of the state to have a man and a woman raise children together.  It is also in the best interests of society to have couples set up households with generational holdings alleviating the state from the need to fully support the elderly who have no children to rely upon and no generational savings to utilize.  It is in the best interest of the state to have familial relationships across the country to provide obligations to aid that family in times of crisis.  It is in the best interest of the state to have marriages between a man and a woman to codify issues of public health and personal safety.  Point being there are more than a few reasons why the state might have its nose in the business of its citizens when it comes to marriage, but seeing to it that any person who loves another person can marry them is not one of them.  As long as this debate has been around there have been those that are reviled because they attempt to make the point that if you allow homosexual marriage you will soon have petitions to allow polygamy and an end to age restrictions and from folks who want to change the meaning of animal husbandry. And, as absurd to some as that may sound it s true.  But, it has little to do with homosexuals being allowed to marry.  It has everything to do to changing the reason to allow people to marry from being in the best interests of society to whether or not the two or three or nine people involved love each other.  It is the changing of the legal standard that always paves the way for the unintended consequences.  We allowed the legislatures and judicial activists to allow no fault divorce and the collapse of the nuclear family commenced forthwith.  Easy divorces made it easy to bail out of a marriage and dump your family because the price of finding an escape from your problems was so low.  Throw away marriages made the concept of premarital sexual relations just a matter of paperwork and the rise in children with no available fathers was a predictable and certain outcome.  Changing the standard of divorce from “he/she broke the marriage contract” to “irreconcilable differences” changes the nature of the game.  Changing the definition of marriage to a legal arrangement open to any persons who love each other robs the rest of us by cheapening the importance of marriage.  If you love each other find a church or ballroom and throw a party and declare your love everlasting in public and for all to see.  But love is not an underpinning of contracts and should not be.   Gay marriage has no multigenerational impact for the good of society and does not meet the legal standards that are the true underpinnings of state sanctioned marriage.  I wish it did.

There is a push lately by some conservative pundits and the ruling class of the Republican delegations to insist that Iraq or any other body that was liberated by the U.S. and its military “pay us back”  for our war costs.  The idea being we set you free so you owe us.  I for one could not be more disgusted.  If the fight for freedom across the globe meets the criteria of being in the best interests of the long-term goals of the U.S. or because our allies need our help or because we see an oppressed people who need our unique brand of assistance then we go to war with a clean conscience.  If we go to war to raise money even ex post facto we are no better than the tyrants we depose.  My friends who have gone to war to serve their country did so with the most noble of intentions and to sully their efforts with a demand for cash compensation is to spit on their sacrifice.  Furthermore it leads to motivations that are shameful to consider.  Could we be more “the ugly westerner” than by telling the oppressed people of the Sudan, we would come and end your genocide but we don’t think you would ever be able to pay us back.  So sorry about the horrible rape and murder of your sons and daughters, but you know it’s all about the money.  Could we play into the hands of our enemies any more than having a U.S. Congressman ask for money when we claim to have gone to war in the name of Freedom and Liberty? What a tawdry and dangerous precedent to set.  Anthony Weiner is a pig and his behavior in denigrating women all over the world by treating his position as a pickup line was not nearly so disturbing to me as Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, (Rep. CA 46th), actually asking the Iraqi’s for money as payment for their freedom.  He puts a price on the sacrifice of US Servicemen and women as if their nobility could or should be bought and sold.  Please tell us Rep. Rohrabacher, how much is a life worth in the pursuit of freedom and justice?  Is there a discount schedule?  Do we charge by land won or enemy dead or our own losses? And, is there a price list to give the world for our services in the name of freedom and justice? Rohrabacher should apologize to us all and our Military in particular, as the opening statement in his resignation.  

Seriously, if what Rep. Anthony Weiner did was a mistake we need a new word.  He, with time to consider, took pictures, saved them, named them, transferred them to whatever site or format needed and then transmitted them.  He, with time to consider, blamed the technology, the news media, the rascally republicans and Andrew Breitbart for a hack job and a scam and an attack upon his credibility.  He, with time to consider, lied to his family, new wife, constituents, the FBI, Capitol Police, fellow Congressional Representatives, his staff and, by the way, you and I.  He, with time to consider, cast aspersions on the reliability of Twitter, YFrog, and what ever other technology companies he uses.  And, then he stands at a podium and cries, asking forgiveness for his mistakes. Mistakes.  Mistakes? A mistake is when you act in error based upon a misunderstanding of the facts.  For instance, I write down the wrong answer on a math test because I either did not understand correctly the equation or the numbers involved.  A mistake is hitting send when you wrote “for” and meant “four”.  Sending over the internet  and interstate phone lines to young women and maybe underage girls pictures of yourself in a state of auto-erotic excitement is not a mistake!!  It is not even mere evidence of poor judgement.  It is an act of a man with no judgement of which to speak.  It is if not a criminal act at least an unethical one.  He harmed others reputations with time to understand what he was doing. He called into question the integrity of people and companies who work very hard to maintain their good names.  He isn’t an attorney but presumably he understands the terms libel and slander.  Every decision he has made is now suspect.  Were his votes in Congress cast under the duress of others who already knew of his sexual deviancies? Was his use of congressional power to investigate a talk show hosts sponsors done because he was forced to do so?  Or was his fevered rhetoric just more hubris created by a mind gone horribly astray?  In any case, how can any thinking person who values the integrity if the U.S. Congress not call for this man’s immediate resignation and possible indictment?  (Because, if any of these “women” were underage when he sent them these pictures he was in clear violation of federal law.)   New Yorks 9th District voters look like idiots even if they don’t know it.  To the rest of the country it looks pretty clear that they never really looked into their loudmouth Rep.’s background.  The Democrat Party ran the virtual yellow dog and they yapped along and voted for him for 6 terms!  And, should he get elected again, as is entirely possible, that will also not be a mistake.  It will be the considered act of a people who do not care about the character of the people who make decisions critical to their daily lives.  It will be evidence of more than merely poor judgement.  It will be an affirmation that they think a sitting Member of Congress clearly using his station and access to impress young girls is okey-dokey with them. It will be a reaffirmation of that most critical flaw in the thinking of modern day liberals, that character is situational.  That character can be turned off and on.  It can’t.  If Rep. Weiner will deliberately send pictures of his privates to your daughter he will think nothing of screwing you.  Face it; If you vote for Weiner, you are one.

I had a conversation with a bright woman on Sunday last about the use of force. In particular we were arguing over when is force justified in the eyes of the Lord. Admittedly, I am ill-equipped to answer this question.  I am poorly educated as compared to others in the questions of “moral war”.  However, I am certain in my belief that to fail to protect others who are under attack if you are able is being complicit in the attack.  The woman who was taking the other side of this argument was espousing the perspective that you never know when diplomatic efforts may finally get through to the “evil doers”, to borrow a phrase, and avoid violence.  The question centered on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the hope that war would not flare up in the wake of Mr. Obama’s inelegant articulation of the issues in his latest policy speech on the “two state solution”. Once again, I found myself flabbergasted to come to the understanding that the fact that Israel is under attack from Palestinian rockets every day is not germane to the folks that hold this view.   The fact that our allies and friends are under attack every moment of every day by folks who have stated their intense desire to see Israel wiped off the map and every Jew exterminated is not a theoretical possibility.  It is real and relevant.  It is happening.  It is tragic. And, it is stoppable.  The U.S. and it’s allies are more than able to put an end to daily hostilities with swift and severe military action.  Why then would we stand back and see our friends and allies decimated? What possible motive could we have to stand idly by when we have it in our ability to protect the innocent?  Why wouldn’t we act if for no other reason than to make diplomacy possible?  The Israeli’s can only negotiate under duress and a sense of surrender as long as they are forced to endure endless rocket attacks without being able to pursue a lasting and certain response.  But, if the world were to really slap down Hamas run Palestine and end the attacks and aggression, then true negotiations for peace can start. So…why not? The answer lies only in the most base of reasons.  We are afraid. We are afraid that standing up to the Arab world as regards Israel will put our economic lives at risk. We are afraid that we might not be understood as open-minded and understanding.  We are afraid that our political base will abandon us if we stand for an absolute; any absolute.  Even the absolute commitment to our allies in a time of constant attack and tragedy.  So, we rely on the canard that we must give time for diplomacy to work.  Because, tomorrow maybe the sun will come up.  Even Orphan Annie knew that tomorrow was always a day away.  The time for diplomacy is before the bombs have started going off.  The time for diplomacy is for when the academics have time to craft a clever and acceptable solution.  After the bombs start going off is time for fighting fire with fire.  After the bombs start exploding is time for official policy to take flight.  And, our official policy is that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in time of war and incursion.  Where are we when our allies need us standing with them?  We are in the UN waiting on diplomacy as if dead Israeli’s were just numeric factors in an academic exercise.