Everyone is biased. The degree of our bias is relative to others.
Open-minded people are receptive to new ideas or arguments. They seek to be unprejudiced, unbigoted truth hunters. They gather facts and then use logic and reason to form their opinions.
Closed-minded people are unreceptive to new ideas or arguments. It's hard to argue with, much less convince, a closed-minded person. More often than not, they lack the facts necessary to arrive at informed opinions. If presented with the facts, they either dismiss them or rigidly hold on to their opinion in spite of the facts.
When I say that I am politically independent I
mean that I am not rigidly attached to any U.S. political party. That
said, I cannot think of any plausible circumstance in which I would vote for a
Democrat. But that does not mean that I am rigidly attached to the Republican Party. I have done my due diligence and gathered the facts about both major U.S. political parties and their histories could not be more different.
I am receptive to all well-developed fact-based ideas and arguments. I am nonreceptive, even dismissive, of poorly-inspected ideas or ill-considered arguments based on hearsay, pure emotion, or insupportable ideological beliefs.
Monday, May 29, 2017
Thursday, March 26, 2009
A Letter To Matt Damon
Mr. Damon,
I realize that the election is over and your guy won, but here's some advice to help you in the future.
I just watched a video in which you said the following regarding Governor Sarah Palin: "I need to know if she really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, that's an important ... I want to know that. I really do. Because she's going to have the nuclear codes. I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago. Or if she banned books or tried to ban books. We can't have that." Those were your words verbatim and not out of context.
As I listened to you, I wondered: Is this the same guy who impressed us all when he played the part of a brilliant math whiz in "Good Will Hunting"? Of course, I immediately heard the words, " ... played the part" and understood. You're good with scripted words and thoughts but it seems to end there. The problem is, that little video along with a couple of other things like your appearance with the charlatan, Al Gore, in which you all but kissed his ring, have so diminished my opinion of you that I may never be able to fully enjoy another movie of yours. To be fair, it's not your fault that you are, apparently, not too bright but it's a real problem for me to excuse the astonishing level of ignorance you so often display.
When you say, "I need to know ..." and "I want to know ..." and "I want to know ..." once more, I wonder loudly why you do not know. Do you know how to use a computer? Have you heard of the Internet? Never in the history of mankind has information on everything and everyone been so readily available. So I wonder: Why would a high-profile guy like you talk publicly on a subject that you obviously know nothing about? If you really need and want to know these things about Sarah Palin, why didn't you take about fifteen minutes to do a little research? Of course, when I think about the company you keep, that's probably not a good idea. You would most likely go to a bunch of loony-left websites where they, literally, manufacture bogus myths about everyone they don't like and spread them around the world like the nasty viruses they are. It's called "character assassination" and it is a common tool of small-brained wantabes who lack the intellectual capacity and moral fortitude to engage in honest, informed, civil debate. If left unchecked it may very well destroy America.
But let's get back to the case in point: You wanted to know if Sarah Palin "... really thinks dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago." You said, "... that's important." Would it also be important to you if she said that President Franklin Roosevelt went on television in 1929 to reassure the public about the depression? Or here's another one: Would it be important to you if she thinks we have 58 states in the union? I mean, one could sensibly argue that both of those things are more important than the dinosaur thing. Right? But of course she didn't say either of those things: The gaffe machine and plagiarist, Joe Biden, delivered the first one during a television interview and Barack Obama was the unfortunate author of the second one. Now, just in case you don't know and want to know; FDR was not president in 1929 nor was there was any TV then. Also, there are 50 states in the union, not 58. So now that I've told you who made those two really big intellectual blunders, is it important to you? (Why do I think it may not be?)
Look, if you really care about this great country of ours as much as you say you do, then you should commit yourself to an objective, honest pursuit of the truth without the influence of political bias or the cult of celebrity. With that in mind, I'll give you a couple of things to think about: 1) Sarah Palin never banned a single book, nor did she try to ban any books. That is a loony-left myth. In other words, it is a lie. 2) It is not mere coincidence that she is the most popular governor in the United States. Her approval rating has at times exceeded 90% and she has always earned every single percentage point. Finally, everyone who knows her or has worked with her says she is a very smart, tough, effective governor who gets things done. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself - that is, unless you are afraid of the truth, or worse, afraid of what your loony-left friends might think of you if you say anything even slightly admirable about the most popular governor in the country.
You say you care, then prove it. Do your homework so that the next time you bless us with another opinion, it will be an informed opinion. Now there's a novel idea!
Most sincerely,
A former fan.
Postscript added on April 27, 2009
Sarah Palin never said that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. The whole thing was a complete fabrication by a left-wing blogger named Bob. Take a look at CNN's video and watch "Bad Bob" confess.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
On The Matter Of Gay Marriage
In the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, we beatniks (yes, we) scoffed at the institution of marriage, proclaiming that it was just a piece of paper. If you want to set up house with a member of the opposite sex—or the same sex, for that matter—then you do not need a legal document or the official approval of some religion to do it, we said. We argued that neither an official government document, nor the blessings of a church could enhance, protect, or sustain a commitment, which had been freely made between two people. “As long as the relationship continues to appeal to both parties and the commitment remains strong, then we will stay together. But if our feelings or priorities change, we always have the right to end the relationship.” After all, there seemed to be so many unhappy—even abusive—marriages that we stated with profound certainty that the institution of marriage was an archaic idea that sometimes caused more harm than good. For one, we said, it was too easy to get married and too hard to get divorced. It was not too many years later that hippies asserted the same position and in the ensuing years millions of Americans established de facto marriages by simply “living together.”
Were we right? Well, as with many matters having to do with humans in their sometimes equivocal process of being, for some, the answer (as one of my favorite beatniks wrote) is “blowing in the wind.” But if we are to develop a truly informed opinion about marriage, there are some things we need to consider—things we beatniks chose not to explore too deeply, if at all. At the very least, we should know something about the origins of marriage as we know it today. At the top of the list are the reasons our ancestors created the institution of marriage and why subsequent societies have assiduously protected and honored it for so long. This knowledge will also give us an informed basis upon which we can consider the matter of “gay marriage.”
Note: While human mating practices such as polygamy (many spouses) or more commonly, polygyny (many wives) can be found throughout our history they were and are the exception rather than the rule and have been associated with certain religious beliefs or practiced more often by the most powerful men in society—or when war had killed off large numbers of men. To these, we could add polyandry (one wife with many husbands), although this practice has been quite rare. But for my purposes here, I will restrict the discussion to the most common and enduring form of human mating: The civil institution of monogamous marriage as established and administered by the state.
Origins and reasons
The concept and definition of marriage as the practice of committed, monogamous, legalized mating of men and women able to produce children is, in fact, ancient. A case can be made that some form of it existed in early civilizations that predated written history. But what is more relevant is that the formal establishment of marriage as a state-decreed institution predates all three major religions. In other words, marriage was not originally established for religious reasons. It was not created in order to satisfy the moral tenets of a church or other formalized set of religious beliefs. Therefore, any informed argument designed to consider the idea of gay marriage need not—and I think, should not—be framed as a religious or moral one. Such moral judgments should be considered separately because the history of marriage is solidly established as a civil expedient. Simply put: Religious faith is not a prerequisite to legal marriage.
The origin of civil marriage is well-documented and its purpose is clear. Around 1750 B.C., Sumerian traditions were codified by Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia. Widely known as “Hammurabi’s Laws” or "Hammurabi's Code", customs and traditions developed and practiced by the Sumerians, were formally organized and written into law. This meant that the state could prosecute on its own behalf those who broke the law. Among these new laws and as an essential element of a larger need to organize, sustain, and preserve their cultures and states, and to create a secure environment to ensure the perpetuation of the species, Babylonia and other ancient societies established the institution of marriage.
Consequently and most importantly, as a legal institution, marriage organized and made secure the granting of property rights and the protection of bloodlines. In time, as the needs of various societies required, such matters as the delineation and enforcement of personal responsibility for the protection and welfare of one’s legal mate and children were added to and became common elements of the legal institution of marriage.
“Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron
The reasons for the establishment of the institution of marriage as a legally codified set of laws are unambiguous: Marriage was created to organize, protect, and sustain society for the very practical, important reasons given above. Therefore, when we consider the dictates of nature and the reasons for the institution of marriage, the concept of gay marriage is incongruous with all of them. The purposes and intent for legalizing and documenting marriage were and still are very practical and are by their very nature, applicable only to members of the opposite sex. It is nature itself—not man, nor the state—that requires the union of two members of the opposite sex to ensure the perpetuation of the species. So, for what purpose would a responsible government expand marriage laws to include members of the same sex? Same-sex marriage by definition is not only a fatuous notion; it is an oxymoron.
Marriage is not a civil right
So far as marriage-as-law goes, gay-marriage advocates in the United States correctly argue that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. But they abuse all logic when they further argue that since marriage is a civil matter, it is therefore a civil right and that because it is a civil right, it is unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. This is a fallacious argument. First, as shown earlier, civil marriage was created for rigidly practical reasons having to do with child-bearing members of the opposite sex, only. Second, while marriage is a civil matter, it is not a constitutionally-protected civil right. Where in the constitution are we given the “Right to Marry?”
Equal Protection
To deal with this argument, gay-rights advocates attempt to include marriage under the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. In other words, if opposite-sex partners can marry then so can we, they argue, because the constitution guarantees equal protection and equal treatment. Yet this is merely a specious assertion. Is this what our founders intended when they wrote the constitution? If so, what else should be included? How about polygamy? Or what if someone wants to marry his or her comatose mother or father or their three year old daughter or, for that matter, their pet? Or consider business partners that seek equal treatment before the law in an attempt to change their legal status from a business partnership to a marriage—in which case they could not be required to testify against each other.
The clear purpose of civil rights protections is to provide and assure every citizen of equal treatment when such equal treatment conforms to the intent of laws that are based on social realities and are designed to enhance and promote the general welfare of the people. But when the right to equal protection is invoked in a manner and for a purpose, which would controvert the intent of a good law, it should not be recognized or applied. Instead, if a society determines through diligent consideration that a law no longer serves to enhance and promote the general welfare of the people then it can and should (through lawful process) change the law. Again, good laws are created to improve and advance the general well-being of a society and the institution of marriage has for almost four thousand years, done just that.
It follows, then, that to brashly and suddenly dilute, diminish, or demote such a time-tested, socially critical law that has served countless civilizations so well for thousands of years without proper knowledge of either the reasons for the establishment of the law or the consequences, which would ensue should the law be functionally altered in such a way as to literally remove the sound reasons for which it was created, would be grossly irresponsible.
Other arguments
What about love? Should not people of the same sex have the right to love each other in the same manner as heterosexual couples? Of course all people should have the right to love whomever they choose—and in America, they do. We should all acknowledge that love enhances and makes better all things human. Yet, while we are guaranteed the right to love whomever we choose (the pursuit of happiness), it does not follow that the presence of love gives us the right to legally marry whomever we love. It is a matter of fact that love never had anything to with the creation of the civil institution of marriage. It is also a fact that while the the institution of marriage is strictly limited to one man and one woman, this does not prevent others from loving whomever they choose.
Hospital visitation: In states where this is an issue, we need to design fair and wise mechanisms (laws?) to allow appropriate members of clearly defined, established caring relationships such visitation rights.
To oppose gay marriage is a homophobic reaction: In some instances, it may very well be. Yet, to say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic is, factually, incorrect. Even worse, it is clear that such accusations are designed to cast aspersions on the opposition in an effort to eliminate them as fair and objective participants in the discussion.
But whether opposition to gay marriage is engendered by homophobia or by moral or religious beliefs the central argument against gay marriage remains intact. In other words, such things as homophobia are irrelevant to the historically sound reasons presented here for the preservation and maintenance of legalized civil marriage between one man and one woman.
Homosexuality is unnatural and/or immoral: As stated earlier, opposition to gay marriage based on these reasons is another matter entirely and they have no place in this discussion.
Anti-gay marriage is anti-gay: Again, for almost four thousand years, civil marriage has applied to heterosexual couples only and to oppose gay marriage for the reasons given here does not in any way pass judgment on homosexual behavior. So, to say that anyone who opposes gay marriage is anti-gay simply reveals one more attempt by gay marriage advocates to misdirect the discussion away from the real issues toward disingenuous, inflammatory accusations, which they hope will arouse base emotions in those people who are woefully ignorant of the four thousand year history of civil marriage—why it was established in the first place and why it has endured for so long.
Recently, I watched a clip on television of the actor, Sean Penn, in which he shamed all Californians who voted for Proposition 8—a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008 general election that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. Penn’s patently judgmental and demagogic diatribe was clearly intended to accuse all Californians who voted for Proposition 8 of being anti-gay, homophobic bigots of the worst kind. Instead of engaging them in an informed and intelligent discussion he self-righteously and unfairly condemned them all.
As is too often the case, instead of choosing to engage in intelligent, informed, constructive debate Penn chose to appeal to the prejudices, emotions, or special interests of his audience rather than their intellect or reason. It is an old and deplorable tactic of the left: If you are unable to mount a sound argument on the issues, then attempt to destroy the character of your opponents. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of our society, this tactic is a standard practice for many liberals in America.
Some final thoughts
A case can be made that we Americans are currently experiencing a kind of collective, cultural Attention Deficit Disorder. The news cycle is such that often news is old within hours. The Internet, cell phones, and other technologies have dramatically increased the pace of virtually everything we do. Unfortunately, one debilitating unintended consequence of this phenomenon is that we too often fail to take enough time to seriously consider important issues of the day. Perhaps worse, is that this lack of inspection extends to our media who regularly fail to do the kind of comprehensive reporting that would provide us with the information we need in order to form intelligent opinions. Instead, our major media outlets produce biased news and commentary, which amount to nothing more than agenda-driven propaganda. As a result, the American electorate has never before been so uninformed and misinformed as it is today. It is for this reason that bloggers like myself do what we can to inform and expand the discussions on important matters, which affect us all.
Finally, the fact that civil marriage was created in order to assign personal responsibility to child-bearing couples for each other and for the children they bear is undeniable. Without such regulation, societies decline, inexorably, into chaos and eventually fall. Whenever the integrity of the family unit—a child bearing man and woman—has been compromised, nations fail. Therefore, anything that would or could diminish the intrinsic value of the naturally imposed (by nature) family unit and its time-tested critical role in maintaining the overall integrity of a society should be avoided at all costs. The very idea of gay marriage is anomalous with the fundamental intent of civil marriage. Its adoption can add nothing of practical value to our society and could in reality weaken the purpose of that which has served countless societies so well for so long.
Robert Dixon McKinley
Wednesday, March 21, 2009
Were we right? Well, as with many matters having to do with humans in their sometimes equivocal process of being, for some, the answer (as one of my favorite beatniks wrote) is “blowing in the wind.” But if we are to develop a truly informed opinion about marriage, there are some things we need to consider—things we beatniks chose not to explore too deeply, if at all. At the very least, we should know something about the origins of marriage as we know it today. At the top of the list are the reasons our ancestors created the institution of marriage and why subsequent societies have assiduously protected and honored it for so long. This knowledge will also give us an informed basis upon which we can consider the matter of “gay marriage.”
Note: While human mating practices such as polygamy (many spouses) or more commonly, polygyny (many wives) can be found throughout our history they were and are the exception rather than the rule and have been associated with certain religious beliefs or practiced more often by the most powerful men in society—or when war had killed off large numbers of men. To these, we could add polyandry (one wife with many husbands), although this practice has been quite rare. But for my purposes here, I will restrict the discussion to the most common and enduring form of human mating: The civil institution of monogamous marriage as established and administered by the state.
Origins and reasons
The concept and definition of marriage as the practice of committed, monogamous, legalized mating of men and women able to produce children is, in fact, ancient. A case can be made that some form of it existed in early civilizations that predated written history. But what is more relevant is that the formal establishment of marriage as a state-decreed institution predates all three major religions. In other words, marriage was not originally established for religious reasons. It was not created in order to satisfy the moral tenets of a church or other formalized set of religious beliefs. Therefore, any informed argument designed to consider the idea of gay marriage need not—and I think, should not—be framed as a religious or moral one. Such moral judgments should be considered separately because the history of marriage is solidly established as a civil expedient. Simply put: Religious faith is not a prerequisite to legal marriage.
The origin of civil marriage is well-documented and its purpose is clear. Around 1750 B.C., Sumerian traditions were codified by Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia. Widely known as “Hammurabi’s Laws” or "Hammurabi's Code", customs and traditions developed and practiced by the Sumerians, were formally organized and written into law. This meant that the state could prosecute on its own behalf those who broke the law. Among these new laws and as an essential element of a larger need to organize, sustain, and preserve their cultures and states, and to create a secure environment to ensure the perpetuation of the species, Babylonia and other ancient societies established the institution of marriage.
Consequently and most importantly, as a legal institution, marriage organized and made secure the granting of property rights and the protection of bloodlines. In time, as the needs of various societies required, such matters as the delineation and enforcement of personal responsibility for the protection and welfare of one’s legal mate and children were added to and became common elements of the legal institution of marriage.
“Gay Marriage” is an oxymoron
The reasons for the establishment of the institution of marriage as a legally codified set of laws are unambiguous: Marriage was created to organize, protect, and sustain society for the very practical, important reasons given above. Therefore, when we consider the dictates of nature and the reasons for the institution of marriage, the concept of gay marriage is incongruous with all of them. The purposes and intent for legalizing and documenting marriage were and still are very practical and are by their very nature, applicable only to members of the opposite sex. It is nature itself—not man, nor the state—that requires the union of two members of the opposite sex to ensure the perpetuation of the species. So, for what purpose would a responsible government expand marriage laws to include members of the same sex? Same-sex marriage by definition is not only a fatuous notion; it is an oxymoron.
Marriage is not a civil right
So far as marriage-as-law goes, gay-marriage advocates in the United States correctly argue that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. But they abuse all logic when they further argue that since marriage is a civil matter, it is therefore a civil right and that because it is a civil right, it is unconstitutional to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. This is a fallacious argument. First, as shown earlier, civil marriage was created for rigidly practical reasons having to do with child-bearing members of the opposite sex, only. Second, while marriage is a civil matter, it is not a constitutionally-protected civil right. Where in the constitution are we given the “Right to Marry?”
Equal Protection
To deal with this argument, gay-rights advocates attempt to include marriage under the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. In other words, if opposite-sex partners can marry then so can we, they argue, because the constitution guarantees equal protection and equal treatment. Yet this is merely a specious assertion. Is this what our founders intended when they wrote the constitution? If so, what else should be included? How about polygamy? Or what if someone wants to marry his or her comatose mother or father or their three year old daughter or, for that matter, their pet? Or consider business partners that seek equal treatment before the law in an attempt to change their legal status from a business partnership to a marriage—in which case they could not be required to testify against each other.
The clear purpose of civil rights protections is to provide and assure every citizen of equal treatment when such equal treatment conforms to the intent of laws that are based on social realities and are designed to enhance and promote the general welfare of the people. But when the right to equal protection is invoked in a manner and for a purpose, which would controvert the intent of a good law, it should not be recognized or applied. Instead, if a society determines through diligent consideration that a law no longer serves to enhance and promote the general welfare of the people then it can and should (through lawful process) change the law. Again, good laws are created to improve and advance the general well-being of a society and the institution of marriage has for almost four thousand years, done just that.
It follows, then, that to brashly and suddenly dilute, diminish, or demote such a time-tested, socially critical law that has served countless civilizations so well for thousands of years without proper knowledge of either the reasons for the establishment of the law or the consequences, which would ensue should the law be functionally altered in such a way as to literally remove the sound reasons for which it was created, would be grossly irresponsible.
Other arguments
What about love? Should not people of the same sex have the right to love each other in the same manner as heterosexual couples? Of course all people should have the right to love whomever they choose—and in America, they do. We should all acknowledge that love enhances and makes better all things human. Yet, while we are guaranteed the right to love whomever we choose (the pursuit of happiness), it does not follow that the presence of love gives us the right to legally marry whomever we love. It is a matter of fact that love never had anything to with the creation of the civil institution of marriage. It is also a fact that while the the institution of marriage is strictly limited to one man and one woman, this does not prevent others from loving whomever they choose.
Hospital visitation: In states where this is an issue, we need to design fair and wise mechanisms (laws?) to allow appropriate members of clearly defined, established caring relationships such visitation rights.
To oppose gay marriage is a homophobic reaction: In some instances, it may very well be. Yet, to say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic is, factually, incorrect. Even worse, it is clear that such accusations are designed to cast aspersions on the opposition in an effort to eliminate them as fair and objective participants in the discussion.
But whether opposition to gay marriage is engendered by homophobia or by moral or religious beliefs the central argument against gay marriage remains intact. In other words, such things as homophobia are irrelevant to the historically sound reasons presented here for the preservation and maintenance of legalized civil marriage between one man and one woman.
Homosexuality is unnatural and/or immoral: As stated earlier, opposition to gay marriage based on these reasons is another matter entirely and they have no place in this discussion.
Anti-gay marriage is anti-gay: Again, for almost four thousand years, civil marriage has applied to heterosexual couples only and to oppose gay marriage for the reasons given here does not in any way pass judgment on homosexual behavior. So, to say that anyone who opposes gay marriage is anti-gay simply reveals one more attempt by gay marriage advocates to misdirect the discussion away from the real issues toward disingenuous, inflammatory accusations, which they hope will arouse base emotions in those people who are woefully ignorant of the four thousand year history of civil marriage—why it was established in the first place and why it has endured for so long.
Recently, I watched a clip on television of the actor, Sean Penn, in which he shamed all Californians who voted for Proposition 8—a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008 general election that changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry. Penn’s patently judgmental and demagogic diatribe was clearly intended to accuse all Californians who voted for Proposition 8 of being anti-gay, homophobic bigots of the worst kind. Instead of engaging them in an informed and intelligent discussion he self-righteously and unfairly condemned them all.
As is too often the case, instead of choosing to engage in intelligent, informed, constructive debate Penn chose to appeal to the prejudices, emotions, or special interests of his audience rather than their intellect or reason. It is an old and deplorable tactic of the left: If you are unable to mount a sound argument on the issues, then attempt to destroy the character of your opponents. Unfortunately, and to the detriment of our society, this tactic is a standard practice for many liberals in America.
Some final thoughts
A case can be made that we Americans are currently experiencing a kind of collective, cultural Attention Deficit Disorder. The news cycle is such that often news is old within hours. The Internet, cell phones, and other technologies have dramatically increased the pace of virtually everything we do. Unfortunately, one debilitating unintended consequence of this phenomenon is that we too often fail to take enough time to seriously consider important issues of the day. Perhaps worse, is that this lack of inspection extends to our media who regularly fail to do the kind of comprehensive reporting that would provide us with the information we need in order to form intelligent opinions. Instead, our major media outlets produce biased news and commentary, which amount to nothing more than agenda-driven propaganda. As a result, the American electorate has never before been so uninformed and misinformed as it is today. It is for this reason that bloggers like myself do what we can to inform and expand the discussions on important matters, which affect us all.
Finally, the fact that civil marriage was created in order to assign personal responsibility to child-bearing couples for each other and for the children they bear is undeniable. Without such regulation, societies decline, inexorably, into chaos and eventually fall. Whenever the integrity of the family unit—a child bearing man and woman—has been compromised, nations fail. Therefore, anything that would or could diminish the intrinsic value of the naturally imposed (by nature) family unit and its time-tested critical role in maintaining the overall integrity of a society should be avoided at all costs. The very idea of gay marriage is anomalous with the fundamental intent of civil marriage. Its adoption can add nothing of practical value to our society and could in reality weaken the purpose of that which has served countless societies so well for so long.
Robert Dixon McKinley
Wednesday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, November 04, 2007
President Bush's "Failed economic policies."
President Obama and the Democrats continue to blame our current economic problems on "Bush's failed economic policies." Of course nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, President Bush's economic policies were extraordinarily successful given the circumstances, which accrued to him and were not of his doing. In fact, the root causes of our current economic problems are well documented (though avoided by the mainstream media) and can be traced directly back to the social re-engineering policies that began decades ago. Further, the "trigger" was more recent. (See Did Bush Cause Our Financial Crisis? and Obama Blames Bush For Financial Crisis)
But for now, let's take a look at just some of the results of President George W. Bush's economic policies.
Beginning in August 2003, President Bush’s economic policies resulted in the creation of 8.31 million jobs. It was the longest continuous months of job growth on record.
But for now, let's take a look at just some of the results of President George W. Bush's economic policies.
Beginning in August 2003, President Bush’s economic policies resulted in the creation of 8.31 million jobs. It was the longest continuous months of job growth on record.
November 2, 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures – 166,000 jobs created in October. Since August 2003, 8.31 million jobs have been created, with 1.68 million jobs created over the 12 months that ended in October. Our economy has now added jobs for 50 straight months – the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 4.7 percent.
The U.S. Economy Remains Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic
- Real GDP grew at a strong 3.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
- Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 12.7 percent – an average of over $3,800 per person – since President Bush took office.
- Real wages rose 1.2 percent over the 12 months that ended in September. This rise is faster than the average rate during the 1990s.
- Since the first quarter of 2001, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
- The deficit today is at 1.2 percent of GDP, well below the 40-year average. Economic growth contributed to a 6.7 percent rise in tax receipts in FY 2007, following an increase of 11.8 percent in FY 2006.
In other news, the Democratically controlled congress has also set a new record — they now have the lowest congressional approval rating in history. After promising virtually everything, they have accomplished virtually nothing.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Ignorance and the Political Left
It is extraordinarily disingenuous when liberals sneeringly accuse the Fox News Channel of being conservatively biased when all credible studies reveal that every so-called mainstream media outlet in America is politically biased to the left. Moreover, 80 to 90 percent of "mainstream" media reporters, journalists, and supporting personnel vote almost exclusively for Democrats. So can anyone seriously wonder why a fair and balanced news outlet like Fox would look "conservative" to liberal viewers who have been fed biased liberal reporting, analysis, and commentary for decades?
To be clear, an inseparable element of the political left are the biased media outlets that control and shape their news, analysis, and editorials in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. The resulting product is pure propaganda.
The political left is attempting to destroy the essential political/socio-economic tenets upon which our nation was founded. Knowing human nature as they did, our founding fathers worried that this kind of power-driven self-interest based on highly flawed political ideology could someday bring down the nation they worked so hard to create. Yet, now, powerful politically-left forces are organized and mobilized in an unrelenting assault on our culture and our political and economic systems. They are heavily financed by self-proclaimed socialists like George Soros and their goals are very clear: They want to change America into a “Europeanized” socialist country.
This problem cannot be overstated. The liberal left collective reaches beyond their political majority to encompass our education system and our media. Yet, while even the most casual student of history should be alarmed by this knowledge, there seems to be no widespread concern, which is precisely what was intended and should have been expected.
Yet, perhaps the most insidious form of ignorance, and the most dangerous to our survival, is to not know that it is the structure and nature of our constitutional republic and our capitalistic economic system, combined, that have enabled us to become the most successful nation in world history. Consequently, we (who understand) are left to wonder what those who seek to destroy that which has worked so well, can possibly be thinking! What drives them? Is it the allure of power or is it ideology? Or is it something yet undiscovered or undefined? Whatever it is, one thing is certain: We cannot sit idly by and merely wonder. We must, aggressively and persistently, act to restore and protect the political and socioeconomic systems and values upon which our nation was built and with which we have thrived.
There is no doubt that if the media had done their job, Barack Obama could not have won the election. Without the indulgent complicity of the media, Obama’s populist and demagogic message of “hope and change” would not have been enough. Ignorance was, in fact, an essential element of the Obama victory.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
It is a sad and dangerous fact that political left operatives are now demonstrably akin to fascist propagandists. It has become apparent that, for them, the end justifies the means and truth and respect for fellow countrymen are mere obstacles to overcome. Liberals do not want open and honest debate because they know they cannot win in a fair exchange of ideas, nor can they possibly appear credible if questioned on the facts. Hence, Political Correctness and other insidious thought-police concoctions of theirs are designed to severely limit such debate.To be clear, an inseparable element of the political left are the biased media outlets that control and shape their news, analysis, and editorials in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. The resulting product is pure propaganda.
The political left is attempting to destroy the essential political/socio-economic tenets upon which our nation was founded. Knowing human nature as they did, our founding fathers worried that this kind of power-driven self-interest based on highly flawed political ideology could someday bring down the nation they worked so hard to create. Yet, now, powerful politically-left forces are organized and mobilized in an unrelenting assault on our culture and our political and economic systems. They are heavily financed by self-proclaimed socialists like George Soros and their goals are very clear: They want to change America into a “Europeanized” socialist country.
This problem cannot be overstated. The liberal left collective reaches beyond their political majority to encompass our education system and our media. Yet, while even the most casual student of history should be alarmed by this knowledge, there seems to be no widespread concern, which is precisely what was intended and should have been expected.
Yet, perhaps the most insidious form of ignorance, and the most dangerous to our survival, is to not know that it is the structure and nature of our constitutional republic and our capitalistic economic system, combined, that have enabled us to become the most successful nation in world history. Consequently, we (who understand) are left to wonder what those who seek to destroy that which has worked so well, can possibly be thinking! What drives them? Is it the allure of power or is it ideology? Or is it something yet undiscovered or undefined? Whatever it is, one thing is certain: We cannot sit idly by and merely wonder. We must, aggressively and persistently, act to restore and protect the political and socioeconomic systems and values upon which our nation was built and with which we have thrived.
Post Election 2008 Update:
As shown in post 2008 presidential election surveys, the majority of Obama voters were pathetically ignorant of the most important issues of the day, positions and statements of the presidential candidates, and other pertinent information such as which party currently controls congress.There is no doubt that if the media had done their job, Barack Obama could not have won the election. Without the indulgent complicity of the media, Obama’s populist and demagogic message of “hope and change” would not have been enough. Ignorance was, in fact, an essential element of the Obama victory.
Monday, October 22, 2007
60 Minutes On The Valerie Plame Affair
60 Minutes & Katie Couric
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Another CBS Propaganda Piece
Dan Rather or Valerie and Joe Wilson could have written this piece. Richard Armitage at the State Deptartment "outed" Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Period. End of story. Both Novak and Armitage have confirmed this. Anything that anyone said after that meant nothing and more important, neither of the Wilsons, nor anybody else, have ever provided an ounce of proof that the White House planned or did anything to hurt either Valerie or Joe Wilson. The Wilsons simply indulged in what all liberal, left-wing Bush-haters do: They fabricated accusations in order to hurt our president and destroy the reputations of perfectly innocent people. No? Then where is the proof? Not innuendo. Not suspicion. Proof! No one has produced any. None. Zip.
Before I continue, let's be clear about Richard Armitage—who he is, what he did, and what his relationship was to the Bush White House.
Before I continue, let's be clear about Richard Armitage—who he is, what he did, and what his relationship was to the Bush White House.
- He was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell when, in an unrelated discussion with journalist Robert Novak, he mentioned that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA.
- Armitage was a career diplomat and did not have a close relationship with the Bush White House who knew nothing about what Armitage had said to Mr. Novak.
It is also important to know that Mr. Armitage has never been charged with any wrongdoing and that, contrary to what the Wilsons have said very loudly, very publicly, and very often, there is no evidence that Valerie Plame was a covert operative of the CIA when Mr. Armitage spoke with Mr. Novak. In fact, no one has been charged with any wrongdoing as regards the "outing" of Valerie Plame. Why? Because no law was broken and therefore no crime was committed. More importantly, neither President Bush nor anyone in his administration did any of the things they are still being accused of doing. Yet the propaganda and the character assassination never lets up.
But what has been absolutely documented is that Joe Wilson has lied numerous times during the course of this despicable witch hunt and now Valerie Plame is doing it too. Yet in her interview with Valerie Plame, Katie Couric never so much as hinted at the countless lies that can be so easily documented by anyone willing to spend a little time on Google. But then of course dear honest, unbiased Katie left out everything that would have made this piece an honest one.
CBS pulled another bogus hit job on the Bush administration and anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial, ignorant, certifiably stupid, or a pathological ideologue. To say that CBS is a propaganda arm of the political left is to state the obvious. Can anyone doubt that Dan Rather would still be there if it were not for the existence of the Internet and a couple of alert citizens?
Tonight's 60 Minutes program is just one example of how biased media outlets control and shape a story in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. It is pure propaganda.
But what has been absolutely documented is that Joe Wilson has lied numerous times during the course of this despicable witch hunt and now Valerie Plame is doing it too. Yet in her interview with Valerie Plame, Katie Couric never so much as hinted at the countless lies that can be so easily documented by anyone willing to spend a little time on Google. But then of course dear honest, unbiased Katie left out everything that would have made this piece an honest one.
CBS pulled another bogus hit job on the Bush administration and anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial, ignorant, certifiably stupid, or a pathological ideologue. To say that CBS is a propaganda arm of the political left is to state the obvious. Can anyone doubt that Dan Rather would still be there if it were not for the existence of the Internet and a couple of alert citizens?
Tonight's 60 Minutes program is just one example of how biased media outlets control and shape a story in order to convey a specific and very intentional point of view to their audience. It is pure propaganda.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
An Email To U.S. Congressman Pete Stark
Mr. Stark:
I am not usually a man without words but your remarks regarding the President of our great nation have caused me to feel such deep outrage and visceral anger toward you that nothing I shall say here will be adequate. How dare you! It is one thing to disagree with the President, it is another thing entirely to accuse him of horrendous crimes for which you cannot even begin to make a credible case.
Throughout our history presidents have been criticized for taking us to war and for their conduct of those wars, but, possibly with the exception of the Civil War, never has the criticism reached the volume and the level of meanness, which you and your fellow Democrats viciously inject into the body politic on a daily basis. It is horrendous and it is shameful, and if left unchecked, it may well destroy our great nation.
Among your other despicable accusations against the President, was your charge that he is criminally killing innocent civilians. So let’s look at the truth against the dark lies of your twisted propaganda. The fact is that Democratic presidents have led us into every major foreign war in our history and almost 2 million of our best young people died in those wars. Furthermore, as to the killing of innocent civilians it was Democrats Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who ordered ongoing massive "carpet bombings" of civilian populations in Europe and Japan. As a result, our military killed more civilians in WWII than military personnel. But under President Bush it is our policy to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Yet you and other despicable Democrats accuse him of unspeakable crimes of which he is absolutely not guilty. Compared to presidents of your party, Mr. Bush looks like a saint. I do not make these comparisons in order to disparage the aforementioned presidents but rather to establish honest perspective and context — something you so dishonestly and so conspicuously failed to do.
In a relative sense, the Iraq War is a minor war. It is also clear to any informed person that if we succeed in Iraq (You would hate that.), compared to the massive "Democrat wars" and considering the geopolitical gains, which would most likely accrue, it will have been a real bargain.
You and other dishonest, self-interested political goons constantly decry and sabotage noble American efforts to build a safer world. Your relentless false depiction of the Iraq War as the biggest and most costly war in our history is just one example of this. The truth is, we suffered almost twice as many casualties on D-Day alone than we have suffered during the entire Iraq War and I haven’t even mentioned the First World War, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War—all “Democratic Wars.” Moreover, mistakes made in wars conducted under Democratic presidents fill volumes. But of course you know all of that. So you are a bald-faced liar, Mr. Stark. You are a disgrace and I am ashamed that you are a member of the United States Congress.
Our time-honored tradition of coming together in a time of war has been indispensable as the backbone of our national resolve. Yet you Democrats have trashed that tradition. You have made it starkly (that’s appropriate) clear that your political party and your pathological quest for power comes first and if there is anything left of the country, it comes second. Power is everything to you and you have shown that you will do anything to get it; even destroy honorable and good people who are real American patriots. You truly have no shame.
Finally, you should know that I am a veteran who knows how lucky I am to have been born a U.S. citizen. Now, given the behavior of Democrats over the past six years, I cannot imagine ever voting for one. I see the current Democratic Party as being perhaps the most heartless, morally corrupt, and politically corrosive, party in our history. Your party's standard practice of character assassination is thoroughly disgusting and it is certainly antithetical to what our country stands for.
Frankly, you should be thrown out of congress.
Sincerely,
Robert McKinley
I am not usually a man without words but your remarks regarding the President of our great nation have caused me to feel such deep outrage and visceral anger toward you that nothing I shall say here will be adequate. How dare you! It is one thing to disagree with the President, it is another thing entirely to accuse him of horrendous crimes for which you cannot even begin to make a credible case.
Throughout our history presidents have been criticized for taking us to war and for their conduct of those wars, but, possibly with the exception of the Civil War, never has the criticism reached the volume and the level of meanness, which you and your fellow Democrats viciously inject into the body politic on a daily basis. It is horrendous and it is shameful, and if left unchecked, it may well destroy our great nation.
Among your other despicable accusations against the President, was your charge that he is criminally killing innocent civilians. So let’s look at the truth against the dark lies of your twisted propaganda. The fact is that Democratic presidents have led us into every major foreign war in our history and almost 2 million of our best young people died in those wars. Furthermore, as to the killing of innocent civilians it was Democrats Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman who ordered ongoing massive "carpet bombings" of civilian populations in Europe and Japan. As a result, our military killed more civilians in WWII than military personnel. But under President Bush it is our policy to avoid civilian casualties wherever possible. Yet you and other despicable Democrats accuse him of unspeakable crimes of which he is absolutely not guilty. Compared to presidents of your party, Mr. Bush looks like a saint. I do not make these comparisons in order to disparage the aforementioned presidents but rather to establish honest perspective and context — something you so dishonestly and so conspicuously failed to do.
In a relative sense, the Iraq War is a minor war. It is also clear to any informed person that if we succeed in Iraq (You would hate that.), compared to the massive "Democrat wars" and considering the geopolitical gains, which would most likely accrue, it will have been a real bargain.
You and other dishonest, self-interested political goons constantly decry and sabotage noble American efforts to build a safer world. Your relentless false depiction of the Iraq War as the biggest and most costly war in our history is just one example of this. The truth is, we suffered almost twice as many casualties on D-Day alone than we have suffered during the entire Iraq War and I haven’t even mentioned the First World War, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War—all “Democratic Wars.” Moreover, mistakes made in wars conducted under Democratic presidents fill volumes. But of course you know all of that. So you are a bald-faced liar, Mr. Stark. You are a disgrace and I am ashamed that you are a member of the United States Congress.
Our time-honored tradition of coming together in a time of war has been indispensable as the backbone of our national resolve. Yet you Democrats have trashed that tradition. You have made it starkly (that’s appropriate) clear that your political party and your pathological quest for power comes first and if there is anything left of the country, it comes second. Power is everything to you and you have shown that you will do anything to get it; even destroy honorable and good people who are real American patriots. You truly have no shame.
Finally, you should know that I am a veteran who knows how lucky I am to have been born a U.S. citizen. Now, given the behavior of Democrats over the past six years, I cannot imagine ever voting for one. I see the current Democratic Party as being perhaps the most heartless, morally corrupt, and politically corrosive, party in our history. Your party's standard practice of character assassination is thoroughly disgusting and it is certainly antithetical to what our country stands for.
Frankly, you should be thrown out of congress.
Sincerely,
Robert McKinley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)