Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for January, 2009

The Thing About Umbrellas

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/18

Umbrellas, they say, are useful tools to have during rainy times because those umbrellas, they say, keep you dry. But do umbrellas really keep you dry? An inverted bowl of material roughly four feet in diameter hanging a few inches over your head is all you have between yourself and the rain.

When I have spent any time at all under an umbrella, I have still found myself mostly wet. Oh, the umbrella kept my head and shoulders and maybe even most of one arm dry. But the rest of my body was still open to the rain. Basically, from my mid-chest down to my feet were wet because the umbrella did not protect my entire body from the rain.

I remember when those clear plastic bubble umbrellas were a big fad. With those umbrellas, you could lower the bottom edge of the umbrella to just-below-shoulder level and still see. What was the purpose for designing the bubble umbrella? It was an attempt to rectify an innate flaw of the umbrella, a flaw that allowed most of your body to get wet. But even the bubble umbrella does not keep you dry in the rain. Sure, it will keep more of you dry than a standard umbrella, but it still doesn’t protect you from the waist down.

So why do we use umbrellas if they’re so bad? Because umbrellas do serve a purpose, and effectively so. In short durations, umbrellas help keep much of the water off us. A quick trip from the car to the front door of home or a business establishment is a good time to use an umbrella. In long durations, umbrellas keep water off our heads and, if the umbrellas are large enough and handled expertly (Go ahead and laugh at that over-extended use of the word “expertly;” I got a chuckle out of it.), our shoulders. And let’s face it, we are much more comfortable with our heads and shoulders dry and the rest of our bodies wet than we are with our heads and shoulders wet and the rest of our bodies dry. So, despite their inability to keep much of our bodies dry over any length of time, umbrellas are very useful.

Why Umbrellas?

“Why am I reading about the travails of umbrellas on a political blog?” I do have a reason for talking about umbrellas and that reason isn’t actually about umbrellas. If you consider the picture of a person as an image of a country, you will begin to understand. You can look at it as a scale from elite to common, rich to poor, connected to not-connected. Those who are at the top of the scale will stay dry while those from above-midpoint to bottom will get wet from the rain.

Now that I have developed this word-picture, what am I doing with the word-picture? It is to explain tax policy. For a great many years, “soak the rich” has been the class-envy cash cow of the liberals. It is classic redistribution policy. And yet, that policy has failed the communist states.

Anytime politicians have attempted to “soak the rich,” the rich have sheltered their money from the soaking. Want to increase the profits tax on the wealthy? They’ll just pull their money from their business investments and store it for better times. Want to sock it to corporations? They’ll just pass on the added tax to their customers. Increase the income tax on the big money-makers? They’ll shift their earnings to benefits packages or shift their earnings to later years. Add luxury taxes to yachts or private jets or high-dollar cars? They won’t buy them.

No matter how you try to use class-envy to “soak the rich,” the rich still have umbrellas. And the middle-class and the poor suffer for it. Let’s not forget the politicians who are doing the soaking are also protected from the downpour.

How do the rich umbrellas soak the poor and middle class? If the rich quit buying items that have luxury taxes, those items quit selling. If those items quit selling, the businesses quit building them. If the businesses quit building them, the workers – the poor and middle class – lose their jobs, and thus their incomes. Remember when the Democrats under the Clinton administration nearly single-handedly destroyed the yacht-manufacturing business with the luxury tax on yachts?

It is very important to understand corporations do not actually pay corporate tax. Oh, the records show they do, and the money coming out of corporations and going to government in the form of taxes say they do. But corporations don’t pay corporate tax, customers of those corporations do. When corporate taxes are increased, corporations pass on that tax to their customers who have to pay higher prices for goods to cover the higher tax. So those with less money pay more of their money for the same thing to make up for the added cost of doing business the government put on them. “Which ‘them’ is ‘them?’” When government increases corporate tax, it is an effort to increase the cost of doing business to the corporation. But in actuality the increased tax is an increased cost of doing business for the buyer and not the corporation.

Of course, when the corporation increases its prices, it loses buyers. Increase a price too much and a corporation will go bankrupt. But even without going bankrupt, a loss of business translates to a loss of employment need. A loss of employment need translates to more people out of work. You know, those middle-class and working poor?

When investors take money out of the stock market, businesses have less money for Research and Development, less money for expansion, less money for employee-base maintenance. And that means fewer jobs for the working class.

Countries who have used “class warfare” over any period of time have suffered for it. “Spread the wealth” countries, like Cuba, have depended on money from other countries to keep them propped up. USSR, with its spread the wealth ideology collapsed. China has begun to move from “spread the wealth” toward more of a free-market economy, and has begun a business and economic boom but is hurt by the lack of buyers for their goods in markets that are running toward government control.

At no time has socialism, big government, class envy ever improved the lot in life of the lower classes. Only by reducing government and allowing the market to act has any country experienced any true improvement in living standards of the populace. But we are fast becoming a nation of historical illiteracy, a nation of lazy sheep, seeking a shepherd to lead us ever which where he desires. Our jealousy, our envy, our arrogant ignorance has led us to this point and will lead us ever further into the quagmire unless something violently shakes us out of our lethargy.

Advertisements

Posted in economics, politics, truth | 2 Comments »

Nuclear Iran: A Real Threat

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/18

From The Wall Street Journal comes news that Iran is busily working to acquire the means necessary to build long-range nuclear missiles from your friend and mine, communist China.

Iran’s efforts are detailed in a series of recent emails and letters between Iranian companies and foreign suppliers seen by The Wall Street Journal. Business records show one Iranian company, ABAN Commercial & Industrial Ltd., has contracted through an intermediary for more than 30,000 kilograms (about 66,000 pounds) of tungsten copper — which can be used in missile guidance systems — from Advanced Technology & Materials Co. Ltd. of Beijing. One March 2008 email between the firms mentions shipping 215 ingots, with more planned.

The United Arab Emirates has informed the U.S. that in September it intercepted a Chinese shipment headed to Iran of specialized aluminum sheets that can be used to make ballistic missiles. A month earlier, UAE officials also intercepted an Iran-bound shipment of titanium sheets that can be used in long-range missiles, according to a recent letter to the U.S. Commerce Department from the UAE’s Washington ambassador.

Given Iran’s statement that Israel and the US will be destroyed, there is no doubt if Iran ever got military nuclear capability, it would use that capability against Israel and would try to use it against the US. I have no doubt the US and Israel need to use every means possible to put this to a stop, MSM bedamned.

Posted in Israel, politics, terrorists, war | Comments Off on Nuclear Iran: A Real Threat

North Korea: No Longer a Threat?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/18

According to The Wall Street Journal, North Korea is as much a threat as it ever has been. In an area of the world (the pacific rim) where your word is valued more highly than your signature on a contract, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il regularly breaks his.

Despite agreeing to stop his nuclear program, he has continued. His regime has been known to kidnap South Koreans and Japanese citizens. Many of these kidnap victims, after as many as 30 years or more, have never been repatriated. A supposedly dead person was returned to Japan in an urn, only to be proven by DNA not to be the kidnap victim Kim Jong Il said it was.

All this talk about talking to North Korea and agreeing to cooperate is total nonsense, since Kim Jong Il has no need of integrity and Hillary’s idea of continuing talks that have already proven to be worthless is headed for more of the same… with one exception. Her work will be hailed in the mainstream media while the Bush administration’s work, on which she has modeled her planned work, has garnered no respect from the mainstream media.

The Japanese have it right: There is no talking to North Korea.

Posted in history, politics, truth | Comments Off on North Korea: No Longer a Threat?

What Has This Nation Come To?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/17

After a miraculous event where everything fell into place, from a skilled pilot doing all the right things to comparatively favorable weather to the proper time of the incident to the “stopping” site of a jetliner in the Hudson to the quick reaction of those on the ground and in the water, a question arises.

Can the Passengers of Flight 1549 Sue for Emotional Distress?

The fact this question can even be asked is an indictment on American society. We have become a society of “sue first, be considerate later.” And I, for one, am ashamed to have to admit I live in such a society.

Posted in politically correct, TORT | 1 Comment »

The Move to Repeal the 22nd Amendment

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/16

Hat tip to Dana Pico on this.

It seems there is an effort afoot to repeal the term-limit amendment from the US Constitution, making it possible for Presidents to serve three terms or more. From what I read, Jose Serrano (D-NY) has authored a resolution in the US House of Representatives to eliminate the only term limit in the constitution. Apparently, he introduced the same resolution in 2003, which would have very much benefited Bill Clinton (D-AR) but no Republican would have benefitted. His current introduction of the bill was too late to have had any chance to benefit GWB. Coincidence? I think not.

This action is an attempt to consolidate Democrat power, pure and simple. But even if it weren’t, I would stand solidly against it. As I wrote in a previous article, the lack of term limits is bad for the country, as can be historically evidenced. I suggest all who desire a strong constitutional republic and have a distaste for out of control governments should call or write their congressmen and senators and make it known that the repeal of the 22nd amendment is unacceptable.

Posted in Constitution, politically correct, politics, term limits, truth | 2 Comments »

Peaceniks Beware

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/14

A widening array of nations and an increasing number of everyday citizens are calling on Israel to stop the actions in Gaza. Fed by the mainstream media, more and more American civilians are placing the blame on Israel. But is the information truthful?

Haaretz reports on possible discussions for a ceasefire. A key section of the report follows:

In a statement distributed to news organizations, the Hamas cabinet said it continued to function as a government and condemned Israel for its “reoccupation” of Gaza, saying the invading forces would soon be repelled.

“We confirm to our people that victory is closer than ever,” the statement read.

“We confirm our intention to continue to work to stop the terrorists’ war against our people, end the siege completely and bring about a reopening of the crossings.”

A report in Reuters on Monday quoted unnamed sources in Lebanon close to Hamas as saying the group would not accept ceasefire efforts that include a long-term truce with Israel.

Israel launched its offensive on Dec. 27 saying it intended to put a stop to Hamas’ firing of rockets across the border into southern Israeli towns and cities.

My question to all who are blindly placing blame on Israel and demanding Israel unilaterally stop operations: Would you stop defending yourself from someone you’re winning against, someone who says he won’t accept a peaceful settlement that includes long-term peace? Or would you continue to bring him to a broken state of submission so you can have real peace?

Posted in Islam, Israel, politically correct, terrorists, truth | 1 Comment »

To Juice or Not To Juice, That is the Question

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/14

There are several reasons to “juice up,” to take steroids. Someone may wish to improve his or her money from athletics. Another person might want to bring more glory to his or her country in international competitions. Another person may wish to bring more fame and glory to a specific team. Yet another person may wish to recover from ailments or handle chronic issues, such as asthma or other issues.

Of the four examples above, only option four is a valid reason for introducing steroids to the body. All other options are dishonorable. I don’t know how many people can remember the East German women’s Olympic athletic machine. They were well known for very husky voices and facial hair. There was even an entire TV program dealing with olympic steroids where a German man was a major commenter within the story. It was only at the end of the story where the viewer found out that German man was an East German female Olympian who was so severely messed up by steroids he/she was forced to finish the work the steroids did. I don’t necessarily believe the sensationalist nature of that claim, but it was obvious the East German machine was heavily into steroids.

We all know about recent American athletes who succumbed to the steroid temptation, many of whom have served or are serving prison sentences. Most of us have heard about many of the possible side-effects of steroid use. Many professional athletes are either Hall of Fame-eligible or preparing for HOF eligibility.

How should we treat these athletes? Should their deception and unethical behavior prevent them from a place of honor within their various athletic realms of glory? My blog title gives my answer.

Posted in politics, sports, truth | Comments Off on To Juice or Not To Juice, That is the Question

Right to Know, Power Brokering, Criminal? You Decide

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/13

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government is tracking terrorist locations by cell phone use.

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government, in cooperation with multiple foreign governments and multiple finance businesses, is tracking down and freezing financial assets of terrorist organizations.

A newspaper breaks the news that the US Government is wire-tapping known terrorist organizations.

A newspaper breaks the news that Israel requested bunker buster bombs to help shut down the Iranian nuclear facilities (those facilities that are needed to make weapons-grade nuclear materials). In the same breaking news, the US denied the request due to US covert activities to shut the facilities in question down.

Did the news people responsible for publishing this information truly act on the basis of “the public has a right to know” or were there other reasons? Were all these breaking stories an effort by the news people to bring down the Republican Party in the US Government? Were their actions purely legal or was criminal activity involved?

The information being released was classified information and likely among the highest of classified information. The person or people giving this information to news outlets was indeed violating oaths by doing so. This released information has adversely affected national security. This released information has also put a great many lives at risk, civilian and government alike.

If one life was lost as a result of this release of classified information, I believe everyone involved, from the reporter to the editor and above within the newspaper, and the leaker or leakers themselves, should be tried and convicted of at the very least Manslaughter in the Second Degree or Murder in the Third Degree. Even without the loss of a single life, this act could well be considered espionage. In fact, I do consider it espionage. I actually consider it treasonous but the burden to prove treason is nearly impossible to meet. Espionage will do to fit the crimes all involved have committed and are committing.

But another major point to consider, aside from these criminal issues, is the question of whether these news organizations will continue their behavior once their man is in the White House.

Posted in crime, politics, terrorists, truth, war | Comments Off on Right to Know, Power Brokering, Criminal? You Decide

Response Attitude Paradigm Change

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/13

HISTORICAL VIEW

If on a form of mass transit that gets hijacked, passively cooperate with the hijackers. You are much more likely to survive the event if you do not resist the hijackers in any way.

If a member of an organization reacting to the hijacking, use as much restraint as possible to prevent any escalation in the situation. Seek to negotiate a resolution without actually negotiating. Wait the hijackers out.

AFTER 9/11

If on a form of mass transit that gets hijacked, act immediately to disable the hijackers, even if such action places you at great risk of injury or death. Your actions may well prevent the deaths of a great many others.

Several attempted hijackings and other similarly threatening events have occurred after 9/11 where the passengers did indeed take matters into their own hands, aggressively bringing the assailants to submission.

If a member of an organization reacting to a hijacking, strongly consider the use of deadly force to end the hijacking as quickly as possible. Even if your actions will cause the deaths of innocents, those actions may well prevent a great many more deaths and a great deal more damage and suffering.

This is the new attitude among a massive number of people since the suicide hijacks, and understandably so. It is this new threat resulting from a hijack which has caused the paradigm change. And yet the change appears to be exceedingly narrow in its definition.

When terrorists hide themselves among one group of civilians and indiscriminately attack a second group of civilians, government agencies are not permitted by public opinion to go in and eradicate those terrorists for fear of collateral damage. And it is that very fear of collateral damage the terrorists depend on. When terrorists fire from schools or religious buildings or homes, government agencies cannot retaliate, even in today’s new paradigm, for fear of “bad press.” When terrorists use schools, homes, religious buildings, hospitals, international government buildings to store their weapons, government agencies are supposed to not do anything about it. Terrorists know this and use this every opportunity they get.

Where is the honor in what the terrorists are doing? Where is the honor in the complicit behavior of the mainstream media? Where is the honor in the complicit outcry against those defending themselves and trying to maintain their right to live? When ignoring the actions of known terrorists to complain about the reactions of a government, TRUTH is rejected and DISHONOR is espoused.

Posted in history, Israel, politically correct, terrorists, truth, war | Comments Off on Response Attitude Paradigm Change

So Much For Bipartisanship

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/11

According to Yahoo! News, the Dems on Capitol Hill have decided to challenge the Republicans to a duel of sorts.

Congress is considering whether to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as wilderness in an early showdown that threatens to derail pledges by Senate leaders to work cooperatively as a new administration takes office.

The largest expansion of wilderness protection in 25 years has bipartisan support and would include California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range, Oregon’s Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado and parts of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.

The bill was scuttled last year after objections from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who said spending in the bill was excessive — nearly $4 billion over five years. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is seeking a rare Sunday vote in an apparent effort to punish Coburn and antagonize his GOP colleagues.

The scheduled Sunday session would try to limit GOP stalling tactics and move the bill forward.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the measure represents years of work by lawmakers from many states and both parties. The legislation combines about 160 bills covering nearly every state.

Besides new wilderness designations — the highest level of government protection for public lands — the bill would designate the childhood home of former President Bill Clinton in Hope, Ark., as a national historic site and expand protections for dozens of national parks, rivers and water resources.

In a statement, Coburn said the “earmark-laden” measure “makes a mockery of voters’ hopes for change.”

For example, Coburn said, the bill includes $3 million for a “road to nowhere” through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; $460 million for a water project designed to save 500 salmon in California; and $3.5 million to help celebrate the 450th birthday of St. Augustine, Fla., in 2015.

Environmental groups also oppose the Alaska road. The rest of the bill, they say, would be a huge accomplishment for Congress.

At a time when we are trying to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy, the Democrats are doing what they can to further restrict our ability to locate and make use of our own energy resources. It is also par for the course for Democrats to cobble together 160 different bills to form one singularly huge bill and muscle through a massive amount of unrelated pork. So much for fiscal responsibility in times of travail.

Let’s not forget the decision on the part of the Democrats to issue a Sunday vote. Most Christian Conservatives will be in Church on Sunday. This struck me as an intentional affront to Christians in particular, especially due to the lack of emergency status for the bill. I can fully understand a true emergency requiring a Sunday debate and vote. I cannot stomach a highly rare Sunday debate and vote for a non-emergency concern. I consider this action to be a blatant affront to any true Christians in Congress and in the public at large.

The bill itself is an affront to restraint and an affront to national independence. The tactics used are an affront to all conservatives and all Christians nationwide.

Posted in politically correct, politics | Comments Off on So Much For Bipartisanship

The Patterico Pledge Revisited

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/11

There was an uproar in the blogosphere four years ago concerning possible new FEC regulations restricting the free speech rights of bloggers. I was not blogging at that time, so I hadn’t really heard anything about it. But there was this little section on Common Sense Political Thought, off to the side, that drew my interest. The little section had a header called The Patterico Pledge and a single link called The Patterico Pledge.

Finding the double-notation interesting and finding the obvious lack of anything else in that little section very intriguing, I finally decided to explore that link. What I found bothered me to a great deal and caused me to write this. What is more troublesome is the thought that liberals will back off when their powergrabs cause too much of an uproar and then revisit the subject when they believe everyone has forgotten.

While I know of no such attempts by the FEC as of today, we must remain vigilant. Do not ever sleep on this issue, else it find you while you are asleep and devour you.

THE PATTERICO PLEDGE

If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.

I hereby make this pledge and urge all readers, regardless of political opinion, to make this pledge as well or to re-affirm this pledge already made.

Posted in Constitution, history, politics | Comments Off on The Patterico Pledge Revisited

Term Limits: Good for America

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/10

George Washington prophetically warned about life-long politicians. He tended to give the benefit of the doubt to people in politics, from what I have read. And yet, he still gave warnings about various political trending eventualities, among those being the long-staying politicians (which did not yet exist in the US, as it was in its infancy).

Washington’s warnings in regard to life-long politicians were in regard to the extended loss of intimate contact with those who lived under the laws the politicians created. Politicians are insulated from the effects of their decisions so long as they remain politicians. Once a politician returns to the world of “everyday people,” the politician feels the effects of those decisions. But a lifelong politician will never feel those effects and will never truly know the true nature of the cause/effect of the decisions.

Washington was very strident in his advocacy of “citizen statesmen,” an idea many living in the 18th century found to be foolishness. After all, they posited, ordinary citizens would not be knowledgeable enough nor would they be astute enough to handle all the various machinations of better-learned folk. They also would be unable to deal with the minutia and cloak-and-dagger of the nefarious within and outside the US. Washington was steadfast in his advocacy.

A career politician, even one of pure heart, is much more easily swayed than a citizen statesman. While a citizen statesman will necessarily have his own “after politics” life and the lives of his constituents in mind, a career politician will be swayed by “power intoxication” and the need to maintain his livelihood. While a citizen statesman knows he will soon be placed under the laws he creates, a career politician doesn’t have this knowledge as a hedge against improper laws. With the constant influx of new citizen statesmen and departure of old citizen statesmen, bad laws will much more readily be removed from the books.

Despite Washington’s warnings, our country is full of career politicians. It is extremely difficult to vote an incumbent out of office. A major reason for this difficulty is human nature. It is very difficult for we humans to actually change course. “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” We desire stability and will act to maintain it. And politicians know this. And exploit this to the fullest extent possible.

With career politicians, we have huge numbers of pet projects designed to garner votes. “I got you that dam you wanted.” “I got that huge ship-building contract for you so you and your family can eat for the next ten years.” “I got jobs for your teen-age children.” All sorts of budget-busting spending has been attached to all sorts of congressional bills in efforts to garner “votes next time.” The “citizen statesman” philosophy prevents the vast majority of this because the citizen statesman will have to earn a living after leaving politics.

THE CALL FOR TERM LIMITS

With the benefit of over 200 years of 20/20 hindsight, it is abundantly clear politics in general has been tainted by power-brokering. The vast majority of the general public has been permanently jaded. “All politicians are crooks.” “All politicians are out for themselves.” “Once a politician takes office, he immediately starts campaigning for re-election.” All these opinions are signs of massive disdain for politicians, yet incumbents get huge benefits of the doubt. As I stated above, people resist change. Also, as I stated above, career politicians dump OPM (other people’s money) into their own districts. Whether the reasons for pumping OPM are out of genuine belief it is right or out of a desire to “buy” votes becomes irrelevant. The effect is the same: the incumbent wins many votes on that alone.

It is abundantly clear a majority of those in the US Congress are lifetime politicians. It is also abundantly clear those politicians do not intend to spend their after-congress careers doing “everyday people” jobs. Once a politician leaves office, it’s off to the lucrative lecture tour. Or it’s off to the retirement scene, with the abundant retirement perks of a former congressman.

With term limits, many of these egregious actions will be immediately eliminated. No longer can a congressman retire with an annual 6-digit retirement income. No longer will the new congressmen be able to expect such a huge lecture income after politics. And so many of these bad laws foisted on the “unwashed masses” will be railed against by former politicians who voted for them that it will make your head spin. Instead of what we have now, where bad laws only get worse and bad money is chased by more money, bad laws will be eliminated and bad money will be inverse-exponentially reduced.

An amendment to the Constitution forced term limits on the President of the US, and has guaranteed a constant change in the presidency. The US has not fallen apart because of this amendment. The US, while definitely swinging back and forth in the eyes of the citizenry, has remained relatively stable and consistent in world view. No cataclysmic events have occurred with the change of president as required by the amendment, contrary to the dire warnings of those against term limits. Yet the lack of congressional term limits has led to a continuous downhill slide in multiple facets of US life.

Term limits are imperative for members of both houses of the US Congress. I am not naïve enough to believe a mere law requiring term limits will pass congress, due to the selfish nature of many of those in congress and due to the corrupting power congress provides. Even if such a law passed congress and was signed by the sitting president, I am not naïve enough to believe it would survive the guaranteed challenge in the courts. I guarantee such a law would be overturned by the US Supreme Court.

An amendment is mandatory to force term limits. I believe it is possible for each state to pass a “term limits” amendment to its constitution that fits within the US Constitution, but I am not naïve enough to believe such an amendment will survive the Supreme Court, despite the tenth and eleventh amendments to the US Constitution. Despite my belief such state-wide amendments would fail the revisionist nature of the Supreme Court, I strongly advise each state to pass amendments restricting terms in each of the various offices for its citizens.

Since the Supreme Court will ignore the tenth and eleventh amendments in this regard (the eleventh amendment is by far the lesser amendment in this regard), an amendment to the US Constitution is necessary. I am not naïve enough to call for a constitutional convention as such a convention would inevitably destroy the securities provided by the current constitution, given the power-corrupt nature of today’s politicians and the complicit nature of today’s mainstream media. It is necessary for congress itself to call for this amendment. And obviously, I am not naïve enough to believe such a call will come from today’s congress—unless extreme pressure is laid upon the heads of congressmen from all the states. And this is the most difficult task of all. This is the task we are faced with if we want to return to a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Posted in Constitution, politics, term limits | Comments Off on Term Limits: Good for America

The USO, A Friend in Need

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/10

There is a saying: A friend in need is a friend indeed. And that is exactly what the USO is to our troops. While the US government created the USO years before I was born, the USO is not, I repeat not a government entity. The USO is a private, non-profit organization whose sole purpose is to be a “friend indeed” to our uniformed citizens and their families.

Having been in the military myself 20 years ago, I can say without a doubt I appreciated the USO’s presence. It provides military folk a place to relax and recreate as well as many “above and beyond the call” forms of support and aid, best described in the above link. Those of you who have ties to the military and seek information or aid could be well served in checking with the USO.

Since it is a non-profit organization, the USO uses many volunteers to augment its paid staff. It is also able to take donations to help keep it strong in support of the common soldier, marine, sailor, airman, etc. I strongly urge you to consider the USO when deciding which charitable organizations to support with your time and donations.

Posted in charitible organizations, military | Comments Off on The USO, A Friend in Need

President-elect Obama is on Bad Ground with the Islamic World

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/07

First and foremost, I DO NOT CONDONE assassination attempts against any US President. Let’s be clear and up-front about that. Any who attempt to assassinate POTUS should consider his or her life forfeit. And it should be made so.

Now, with Obama’s “apostate” standing among the Islamic world, the level of threat against him is greatly increased. By several orders of richter-scale-like magnitude. Not only does he have to fear left-wing nutjobs, right-wing nutjobs, and “make me famous” nutjobs, he also has to fear Islamic terrorists and other Islamists who wish to fulfill the Quran. Of course, “fear” is not necessarily the best operative word, but it is indeed fitting.

He is actually among the worst possible options for handling the extremist Islamists of the world. “I used to be Islamic, like you” will only serve to remind the Islamists they don’t actually have to negotiate in good faith because he is, after all, “apostate.” So, they can make a deal with him at 11am and break the deal at 1pm without actually violating any principles. Not that the Islamo-terrorists are concerned with things like “my word is my bond” or anything, but even so, they will be that much more free to ignore their oaths.

It never ceases to amaze me the depths of naivete we, as Americans, are willing to sink to (bad grammar, good flow) when considering the nature of others. It reminds me of a line in the movie Girlfight, a movie I strongly reccomend, by the way. When Diana Guzman gets busted for fighting in school, the administrator who chastises her says something along the lines of “Have you EVER considered talking things out?” The whole thrust of the administrator’s chastisement was “Fighting is never the answer, but talking is.” This is the foolishness propegated by many well-intentioned but forcefully naive people.

In short (too late), is it truly any surprise that an Islamo-terrorist would berate Obama or use him to whip up the masses?

(I posted this in a response on Patterico’s Pontifications.)

Posted in Islam, politically correct, politics, terrorists | Comments Off on President-elect Obama is on Bad Ground with the Islamic World

Consider This

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2009/01/06

I All NFL teams shall be required to have at a minimum two caucasian men for each of the following positions: Running Back, Wide Receiver, Defensive Back.
II All NFL teams shall be required to play these caucasian men for a minimum combined official game time of sixty minutes.
III Any NFL team found in violation of these requirements shall be fined no less than 1/160 of total revenue per instance. Should any NFL team be found in violation of these requirements more than four times in five years, the NFL team shall be fined no less than 1/32 of total revenue per instance and shall be excluded from the first two rounds of the NFL draft.
IV The draft exclusion shall remain in effect until the NFL team returns to acceptable standards.
Should any NFL team be excluded four consecutive years, that NFL team shall be dissolved.
V These rules are set in place to provide racial equity. It is well-known caucasians as a whole lack the necessary ability to properly compete for these positions; therefore, it is necessary to provide these requirements to promote equity within the game.

Does the above sound ridiculous to you? Racist, maybe? Does it offend you? Why? Does the above appear to you that caucasians need special help because they’re less than capable of making it on their own? Isn’t that what we’re already doing within certain portions of academia and certain portions of the business sector regarding people of other ethnic backgrounds?

We have regulations in place requiring an accountability regarding placement percentages of people of various ethnic origins. To meet these accountability standards, we have multiple standards to attain placement status. One group of people with a certain ethnic background needs to attain a high standard while another group with a different ethnic background needs to attain a lower standard. And why is that? To obtain a proper ethnic blend.

We are actually telling those of the “wrong” ethnic background “you could not be here unless we gave you a boost due to your inferior ethnic background. Do we really want to tell these people such a thing? Do you truly believe people of certain ethnic backgrounds are less intellectually capable than those of other ethnic backgrounds? I do not believe anything like that.

People need to be judged solely on their ability to do the task at hand, not on any other basis. If I am more qualified to handle a task than someone else, I should be the one given that task. I should not have to take a back seat to someone less qualified simply due to the other person’s “less than capable” ethnic background.

It amazes me how supporters of this supposed “affirmative action” can call me racist when I affirm that race should not be considered. It is definitely racist to claim a certain race should get preferential treatment because that race can’t do it alone. But the “PC” crowd chooses to conveniently disregard the facts to support their agenda. The “PC” crowd prefers to brand unbelievers with labels and stereotypes rather than debate facts. Why? Because any fact-based debate will have them on the losing side.

Posted in affirmative action, politically correct, politics, race, stereotype | Comments Off on Consider This

 
%d bloggers like this: