US Political Nonsense

Let’s face it: we all choose to sacrifice a lot in the name of being “safe.”  When a terrorist attacks, whether it succeeds or fails, we all become tense and worrisome wondering if we are going to be safe.  In most cases, yes.  We are going to be safe.  In most cases we live in a society where these attacks are pretty limited and sporadic.  Mostly that is due to current efforts from our various law enforcement agencies and officials who keep a constant watch over us.

But those few that get through the cracks, like the failed Christmas bombing attack, only ignite a fire that we cannot put out.  We awaken a greater threat to our freedoms than some radical, misguided youth.  We invoke the need for our government to save us.

What does that mean?  Well, for starters, that means we are ever so closer to 1984, despite our yearly march away from that year.  It means that a family on a trip to Disney has to be humiliatingly screened by new machines checking under our clothes.  How do you get around our rights against search and seizure?  Make EVERYONE have probably cause.

“Yes, little child, we need to peek under those clothes because mommy or daddy might have planted explosives on you.  You, my dear, are a threat.”

Governments claim to hate terrorist attacks, but secretly they love a good fear-inducer.  Like with Bush and the Patriot Act post-911, it allows for quick, sweeping, rights-infringing legislation with little to no opposition.  Obama and Napolitano are doing it now with the new scanners.  Surely more restrictions and legislation will be on its way.  Hey, why not?  It makes you feel safe doesn’t it?  Our Government is here to help us!

Welcome to our new totalitarian regime, folks.  Hope you feel safe!

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin

In this new segment I am going to pick apart some of the ideals of modern liberals.  I might be asking for a fight, but in any ideological system there are bound to be some flaws.  Here, I expose some by your stereotypical, bleeding heart liberal.  If this describes you, then time to re-examine your beliefs.

Liberal ideals: Abortion is good; the death penalty is bad.
Allow for the legalized disposal of unborn fetuses while denying the killing of those sentenced to death for murder, assault, and other cases of violence.  In other words, it is ok to kill a child who has yet been given the chance to breathe, much less prove its worth to society since that child might inconvenience the mother, but it is immoral to kill those who have already proven themselves destructive, violent, a danger to society, and a failed human overall.

I’m just sayin’

* note that the writer actually supports legalized abortion as he believes the government should not be making that decision.  The moral implications can be decided by the mother and father.  Yes, the father should also have a say (you want equal rights correct?).  As far as the writer’s moral stance, he believes abortion is repugnant.

Here’s your possible Christmas gift from Congress: more government wrapped in a mockery of problem-solving legislation.  This is otherwise known as the healthcare bill.

The problem: there are people without insurance.  Gasp!  Now while that can indeed be an issue, why not just make a bill simply to cover them?  Simply put, that would just make too much sense.

Nope.  Government isn’t truly interested in solving any problems.  That is, they aren’t interested in solving problems other than the problem in that they believe that they don’t have enough power.

The health system does need reformed.  Unfortunately the only true way to solve it has been suggested already and will never occur: make congress and the President operate under the same plans as average citizens.  They’ll be more inclined to repair the system promptly.  Instead, we will see yet another government expansion, more spending, and more bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, unless Congress sees that they’re jobs are threatened more if they do pass this, we’ll find it even more difficult to dismantle a truly oversized government machine.  Merry Christmas!

So most of the world’s politicians and leaders are meeting in Denmark to discuss the “dire need” for governments to take action on the environmental catastrophe that is befalling us.  Their target: CO2 emissions.

Largely absent from any agenda are true problems that exist right now.  Of them, the growing problems facing our water supply.  The planet is quickly running out of fresh water in the volumes needed by our increasing population.  What does that mean?

Make no mistake, the attempt to paint CO2, carbon dioxide, as a harmful polutant is nothing more than a political ploy aimed at further regulating and controlling industry.  As I have contended before, there is no solid scientific data (and that data that many claim solid is now truly under question thanks to “Climategate”) that proves CO2 is the cause of global warming.  First it was VOC’s, then CFC’s, then methane emissions, and now finally it is CO2.

True, there is no question the negative impact that this species is having on the environment.  We need to focus on real, effective means of curbing our influence.  Of those ways, severe taxes on emissions, carbon-trading, and schemes of that nature are only in place to give more power to the government.

If you want real change, a cultural change is needed.  One way to do so is to offer newer, cleaner technologies as CHEAPER alternatives.  Currently, most “cleaner” technologies are simply too expensive up front with a recovered cost only after years of usage.  Does that sound like a deal to a culture saddled with debt?  We want our savings up front.  Most have no patience for it otherwise.

That is only a first step as well.  Overall, simply regulation and legislating is only going to put a heavier burden on an already burdened industry and society.  There are just better ways.  Too bad governments aren’t interested unless it gives them more power.

Picture from unknown source.

Comcast just recently purchased a controlling 51% share in NBC.  Does its broad span of control now threaten becoming a monopoly? And should the government get involved?

On the cusp of emails released displaying a chilling possibility of scientists conspiring to produce data supporting Global Warming as a human-created phenomenon, and the discovery of scores of raw data of global climates having been “dumped” disallowing for peer review of results, do you believe that Global Warming is actually occurring or does it seem that it is more likely a conspiracy to support political agendas?

Obama decided that he is going to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan against the advice of his liberal counterparts. Plus adding another $30 Billion a year in government spending. What is your take on this decision?

As the news has been covering Sarah Palin on a daily basis, a significant topic has been coming up over and over again. Will Sarah Palin be the Republican Nominee for President in 2012? If this is the case; with her recent situations, does she stand a chance against Obama if he decides to run for a second term?

Last week Jimmy Carter was answering a question about heightened racial “hate speech” and violent themes seen at rallies since Obama took office on Brian Wilson’s NBC Nightly News.

I think Carter was suggesting that the chutzpah Joe Wilson needed to say “You Lie” in a Joint Session of Congress was based on Carter’s belief that many southern American’s are racist and that they believe “that an African American could not be qualified to lead this great nation” much less be in a position of respect.

Joe Wilson, like many others, was born in a segregated South and probably never expected that President of the United States America would be an African American.

Many people would feel comfortable to confront or correct a subordinate when they believe a mistake was made but most would bite their tongue when a superior makes the same mistake.

Recently, Presidents Clinton and Obama have taken the political high ground and left Carter to blew in the wind by himself again. They have answered questions about Carter’s comments by suggesting that the protesters haven’t been racist because they have always been against health care reform and that Obama was “black before the election” when he was elected so the American people must not be concerned about that.

But when did the conservative rallies begin? I don’t remember them in the 1990’s. I don’t ever remember bringing guns to “Free Speech” zones that Bush created for demonstrators miles away from events. I don’t remember when politics was so polarizing and hateful, full of lies and deceit.

It scares me that so many stories, based on so little, can be repeated so many times in emails, on signs and by elected politicians, especially, but not limited to the “Birthers” and “Deathers”. Is this the best that billions in think tanks can create for the right to talk about? Don’t they care about the country enough to have an honest debate about anything?

People that usually wouldn’t bother to put down their Budweiser to answer the door are picketing and marching because they are positive that the America they love is gone because an election wasn’t stolen by the white guy supporting corporate interests but won by a brilliant, honest, middle-class kid that had a black Muslim father and named him Barrack Hussein Obama.

Mike Nicer