Advertisement

Posts tagged with Democrats

Democrats Are Ultraconservative Elitists - Not Liberals

Why do Republicans like Rush Limbaugh continue to help out Democrats be calling them "liberals" even though most Democrats are ultraconservative elitists?

Rush's listeners might consider the word "liberal" a bad name, but many others, including most political journalists don't. Many journalists seem to think that American politics involves a contest between good guys and bad guys like a 50's tv western. They ignore the possibility that many national level politicians are like the characters Clint Eastwood played in western movies. It's not always clear whether they are good guys or bad guys. Many believe that "liberals" are the good guys and "conservatives" are the bad guys even though most don't understand the concepts involved.

Most journalists have no idea what a "liberal" is but assume that the people Rush Limbaugh calls "liberals" are the ones they should support. Limbaugh doesn't understand that "liberal" doesn't refer to specific government programs or policies. The term certainly doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with Limbaugh.

Limbaugh doesn't understand that liberals don't always remain liberals. Friedrich Nietzsche once noted that "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

Once liberals establish what they want, human nature takes over and they become more protective of their "baby" than a mother bear protecting her cubs. True liberals would recognize that no system is perfect and continue to look for ways to improve or replace systems as necessary.

With the possible exception of personal moral values, Democrats have become the antithesis of liberals. Most haven't had a new idea in 40 years. Democrats tend to handle everything the way they did the Vietnam War. When their strategy didn't produce immediate results they just sent in more and more troops instead of evaluating the situation and looking for a better strategy. If spending programs don't produce the desired results ultraconservative Democrats just spend more money instead of examining the program to see if it can work. If Democrats were liberals they would try to find better programs.

Political liberals should be open minded, but ultraconservative Democrats tend to True Believers who believe they are Right about everything and anybody who disagrees is Wrong. Democrats seem unable to comprehend the possibility of any other proposals than theirs. A real liberal believes your ideas are just as likely to be valid as his.

When the Reagan administration loosened some federal regulations, the process was called "liberalization". Democrats favor increased regulations with large bureaucracies to enforce them. Such an approach is inherently ultraconservative because in the long run it discourages change. If current regulations don't work, Democrats take the ultraconservative approach that the answer is more regulations and more regulators even though the problem may be the current regulations are unworkable or aren't being enforced as happened in a recent recession.

No real liberal would favor a health care measure that uses police state methods to force people to buy health insurance whether they think they can afford it or not. Real liberals would not have favored the big insurance corporation subsidy bill commonly called "Obamacare."

Liberals believe the state exists to serve the people. Democrats believe people should be forced to serve the interests of the state and the various special interests who control Democratic office holders.

Real liberals ignore differences in skin color instead of categorizing people by skin color. Democrats take an Archie Bunker approach to ethnic issues. When the prejudiced Archie describes a balanced ticket to his son-in-law Michael he describes a balanced ticket as one consisting of a black guy, a Jew, an Italian...and a "regular American" (i.e., a white person like Archie). Democrats may not use Archie's terms but they treat whites as "regular Americans" and insist on using special terms for non-whites. Even though the first Africans arrived in North America long before the British, Democrats insist that dark skinned Americans be called "African Americans" as if they were recent arrivals.

Democrats assume all individuals within an interest group have the same political interests which are different from the interests of other groups.

Fifty years ago liberal Democrats fought to close inferior Jim Crow health care facilities in the south. Today's Democrats authorize federal funds to operate "Jane Crow" health facilities that provide lower quality health care to minority women than facilities that serve white men are required to provide. Last year a black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death after being treated in an unlicensed [and therefore illegal] health clinic in President Obama's hometown. Dr. Martin Luther King's niece Dr. Alveda King calls the death murder.

Obama acted quickly when a black man was killed after attacking a police officer in Ferguson, Mo.. However, he did nothing after a black woman died due the negligence of workers in the Chicago health clinic run by an organization that supports Democratic politicians.

A real liberal would treat a graduate of Eureka College as potentially being the equal of a graduate of Harvard. or Yale. Democrats tend to believe that Ivy League graduates are the best and the brightest in spite of the fact that Ivy League grads put half a million of us in Vietnam for no apparent reason other than they didn't want to lose the Vietnam War before the next election.

Leaders of the Democrats tend to suffer from the delusion that they are better than other people. They may think they are better because of their economic status, the status of their ancestors or the schools they attended.

Elitists often believe they are privileged characters who can do whatever they want like the Wall Street Bums who insisted on being paid bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. Members of the elite sometimes get away with things the rest of us would be punished for, such as Sen Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge and leaving his passenger to die.

Many of the old rich believe they are better because of the actions of their ancestors even though those "Robber Baron" ancestors got their position by wrecking the environment or mistreating their employees. The ultimate elite are the royal families of Europe whose founding members were cut throats who took power through violence and killed or imprisoned anyone who was in their way including members of their own families.

I'm too cynical to be a liberal because liberals tend to be optimists. We could use some liberals today because unlike most Democrats and Republicans liberals tend to be pragmatic rather than ideological. Liberals would recognize that dealing with problems requires an approach between the rigid government regulations favored by Democrats and the no government attitude of Republicans.

Reply

If No Democrat Senate Candidate, I’ll Vote for Roberts

I had been looking forward to the opportunity to vote for an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate. I often vote for "third party" candidates because the two 19th Century major parties are out of touch with reality. For example, I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000.

Chad Taylor's withdrawal as the Democrat's Senate candidate provides strong evidence that Sen. Pat Roberts is probably correct when he says Greg Orman is really just a Democrat masquerading as an Independent.

Chad Taylor apparently filed for the Senate nomination to keep serious Democrats from running for the office. I strongly suspect that he had no intention of actually seeking the Senate seat. He merely wanted to insure that Orman would have a clear shot to win the seat for the Democratic Party.

I hope that Orman is sincere, but I cannot ignore the fact that the Democrats who know him better than I do believe he is one of them. Taylor in effect has made Orman the Democrat's Senate candidate.

If Orman wants us to take him seriously, he should condemn Taylor's withdrawal and demand that Democrats name a new candidate. He could site the incident as an example of what is wrong with the major parties. Democrat leaders don't care what chicanery they use to win. Democrats only care about winning. Democrats don't care about people or their rights.

Orman needs to emphasize how he disagrees with the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama. He needs to run against Congress and President Obama. We have a president who seems incapable of providing leadership and a Congress full of people more interested in playing silly political games than dealing seriously with the nation's problems. The two parties are equally at fault. Our President and Congress are more interested in serving special interests than in serving the people.

For example, Orman should promise to work to eliminate the Obamacare provision that requires young people who want to purchase homes or start businesses to use their money instead to subsidize the profits of huge health insurance companies by purchasing health insurance they believe they can do without until they get established financially. Starting out on life's road requires taking risks and young people should have the right to decide what risks they want to take.

A special prosecutor or grand jury should investigate to determine if Taylor deliberately committed fraud by running for a nomination even though he planned to withdraw from the race to help Greg Orman win the election. The investigation should also seek to determine if Orman was in on the plot.

Perhaps an imaginative attorney can come up with a class action civil lawsuit on behave of the voters Taylor disenfranchised. Perhaps this attorney could take advantage of the fact that a large percentage of black voters support Democrats means that Taylor's resignation amounts to depriving them of their right to vote on the basis of race.

Political primaries were established to give party members an opportunity to select candidates instead of having to accept candidates chosen by special interests in the old "smoke filled rooms". Chad Taylor and the leaders of the Kansas Democrat party have demonstrated their contempt for the electoral process by circumventing the voters and depriving them of their right to choose their party's Senate candidate. The Justices of the Kansas Supreme Court have demonstrated their contempt for elective government by supporting this fraud.

Reply

Democrats War on Women

It isn't unusual for a political group to accuse a rival group of doing what it is doing. This situation occurs because members of the the first group believe whatever they are doing is "right" and whatever the opposition is doing is "wrong". The best example of this phenomena is the standard claim by each party that the other party is getting special interest group support.

Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of waging a war on women while ignoring the Democrats own war on women. War involves death and Democrats support policies that increase the death rate of women by failing to regulate abortion providers or adequately test contraceptive produces.

Governments have long recognized the need to regulate the health care industry to insure that those providing medical services are actually qualified to do the job and adhere to the highest standards of safety. However, when it comes to regulating those who provide abortion related health care many Democrats act like disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

The only people who seem interested in insuring adequate regulation of abortion providers are the people who oppose the procedure. Many Democrats are so obsessed with the idea that abortions must be available that they don't care about the safety of the procedure. Some Democrats seem incapable of understanding that women don't benefit from abortions that kill them.

Although it is preferable for babies to be delivered by trained individuals, people with no medical training including cab drivers and children have been known to help successfully deliver babies.

However, abortion is major surgery. An abortion involves removing something from the interior of a body that is attached to the body. Abortions should only be performed by trained professionals operating in facilities that conform to government standards for surgical facilities. Abortionists should know how to correct the mistakes that sometimes occur during surgery. Government needs to strictly regulate the process to protect women from the type of under qualified individuals who will attempt to perform medical services if the opportunity is available. Government should require individuals and facilities that perform abortions to meet the same licensing standards as other facilities.

Failing to require facilities that treat only women to meet the same standards as facilities that treat men and women is the equivalent of the old southern Jim Crow laws. The lack of government oversight is particularly disturbing when unlicensed or under regulated facilities are allowed to operate in areas with high minority populations. A young black woman named Tonya Reaves died a few months ago from a poorly performed abortion at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago. http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm

As with many medical procedures there are potential adverse side effects to abortion. Democrats believe doctors who should be required to inform patients of adverse side effects for other procedures shouldn't have to inform women about possible adverse health effects of abortion which some studies indicate include an increased risk of breast cancer (in young women) and suicide. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584 http://afterabortion.org/2001/suicide-rate-higher-after-abortion-study-shows/

The primary impact of abortion on breast cancer seems to be on young women with the first pregnancy because their breasts are still developing new cells. The abortion stops this process with some cells not fully developed. If these undeveloped cells start reproducing later as something other than breast cells the result can be a cancerous tumor.

Medical authorities don't fully understand how a woman's brain chemistry changes with pregnancy and with the end of pregnancy. They know that women can become severely depressed and possibly suicidal after giving birth. An artificial end to pregnancy is likely to cause the same depression encouraging changes in a woman's brain chemistry. Women who have unwanted pregnancies may already have a negative attitude about themselves which could lead to depression and suicide.

Women who have abortions should be encouraged to contact mental health professionals after the abortion. Women who have abortions may be more likely to become severely depressed because they have a negative attitude toward the pregnancy and possibly a negative opinion about themselves associated with the decisions that led to the pregnancy.

Medical treatments often have risks of adverse side effects for some people. Patients have a right to know what the suspected adverse side effects are so they can make an informed decision. Medical treatments don't affect everyone the same way. For example, the penicillan that could save my life from an infection would have killed my mother because she was allergic to it. Some medical treatments, such as use of radiation, can increase the risk of cancer. Other treatments such as organ transplants may increase the risk of suicide.

Surgery carries the risk of infection, permanent injury or even death. Abortion can be major surgery. Complications from an abortion can include a hysterectomy or death as the family of Tonya Reaves discovered after she died from a poorly performed abortion in an unlicensed clinic a few months ago.

Democrats apparently think women are incapable of evaluating possible risks when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Democrats don't think women considering an abortion can balance the possible adverse consequences of an abortion with what they consider the negative aspects of their pregnancies.

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws." If the law requires health care providers to warn men of possible adverse side effects of medical procedures, then health care providers must provide the same type of warnings to women including those seeking abortions. State laws that seem to allow those providing medical threatment to avoid warning women are unconsitutional.

If Democrats really cared about women they would do something to prohibit those men who molest young girls from paying abortionists to dispose of the evidence that a molester has gotten an underage girl pregnant. Children who are sexually molested can suffer for years afterwards. Proving child abuse can be difficult because courts may not consider a child's testimony to be reliable. The remains of an aborted baby provide indisputable evidence that a man has sexaully molested a child. Child molesters often molest more than one child. Failing to prosecute a molester allows him to continue to ruin the lives of children. If Democrats really cared about women they would support legislation requiring abortionists to deliver the remains of abortions on underage females to the local medical examiner for possible law enforcement action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_se...

Democrats make a big deal out of contraceptives. They want to make sure women don't have to pay for them. However, Democrats don't seem to care as much about the safety of contraceptives. If you notice the ads by ambulance chasing lawyers you've seen the ones about a lawsuit involving the once popular contraceptive Yaz.

Yaz has been discovered to have the same problem as some earlier contraceptives. It can cause fatal blood clots. If Democrats really cared about women they would insure that contraceptives are adequately tested for the potential to create blood clots or cause other problems before they can be marketed.

Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but it is the Democrats who see nothing wrong with allowing unregulated or poorly regulated individuals to perform medical procedures on women that can injure or even kill the patient. It is Democrats, rather than Republicans, who favor laws that increase the risk of death for women.

Reply 14 comments from Jackmckee Jafs Liberty275 Rockchalk1977 Fretster Blue73harley Riverdrifter Autie Pizzapete Armstrong and 2 others

Democrats Don’t Care About Women or Minorities

Democrats care so little about minority women that they allow unlicensed facilities to kill them. The old civil rights leaders will protest when someone shoots a black man but do nothing when a doctor in an unlicensed health facility kills a black woman. Nothing better demonstrates the hypocrisy of President Barack Obama than the fact that unlicensed medical facilities are allowed to [mis]treat women in his hometown of Chicago.

When a black man dies a violent death black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton descend on the location and ask for an investigation while sometimes alleging that racism might be a factor.

On July 20 a 24-year-old black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/03/planned-parenthood-never-called-911-for-abortion-victim/ after a botched abortion at an unlicensed Chicago Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. I've checked Google and can find no indication that either Jackson or Sharpton have protested Reaves' death. Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she died from negligence rather than someone firing a gun? Or is it because they don't believe abortion providers need to be medically competent?

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws" regardless of race or sex. Illinois allows facilities run by Planned Parenthood that only treat women to operate without the licensing requirements of facilities that treat men as well as women. Are Jackson and Sharpton ignoring this violation of the Constitution because the denial of equal protection is based on sex rather than race?

Tonya Reaves received a second trimester dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortion http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion at 11 A.M. at Planned Parenthood's Chicago Loop Health Center. She began bleeding after the procedure, but for unexplained reasons wasn't treated until she was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital by a fire department ambulance at 4:30 P.M. There is no record that the clinic called 911.

Hospital personnel had to start from scratch to examine her because they received no information about her treatment at Planned Parenthood. According to WBBM's Steve Miller http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ reporting on documents provided by Northwestern: “at 5:30 p.m., doctors performed an ultrasound, and another dilation and evacuation procedure – basically, another abortion – this time at Northwestern. But after that, there were then more problems, and pain. That warranted a new ultrasound, and a perforation was discovered. At 10:12 p.m., Reaves was taken back to surgery – and 'an uncontrollable bleed' was discovered.”

Reaves was pronounced dead an hour later.

Dr. James C. Anderson, M.D., a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor has complained that abortion clinics never informed him about their patients’ conditions. “I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest,” stated Dr. Anderson. “These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”

In a written statement, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite said “We were shocked and saddened upon learning of a tragic development at a nearby hospital. Our hearts go out to the loved ones of this patient. While legal abortion services in the United States have a very high safety record, a tragedy such as this is devastating to loved ones and we offer our deepest sympathies. Planned Parenthood of Illinois cares deeply about the health and safety of each and every patient. We do not publicly discuss private patient matters and we follow HIPAA laws that forbid the disclosure of patient information.” The statement that Planned Parenthood cares about the health and safety of its patients is an obvious lie. If Planned Parenthood really cared about its patients' welfare it would subject its facilities to the same rigid licensing requirements of other health facilities. Its clinics would be prepared for the known complications of abortions and send patients to a nearby hospital if necessary. Patient privacy rules provide a convenient excuse for not releasing any potentially self incriminating information about how they mistreated Reaves.

Prominent civil rights leaders may have ignored Reaves death, but the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, brother Rev. A.D. King has spoken out. Dr. Alveda C. King has protested what she calls the "tragic slaughter of Tonya Reaves, a young woman, who was butchered in a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Chicago?" http://www.priestsforlife.org/staff/alvedaking.htm

King goes on to say the people at Planned Parenthood "are going to a lot of trouble to make it seem that murders like Tonya’s are a fluke. Planned Parenthood promised Tonya a solution to her problems, and they killed her. Now, she is dead; a beautiful victim of the nefarious liars at Planned Parenthood. Yes friends, Tonya and her dead baby are victims. For those who want to point the finger at Tonya and say that nobody made her go to Planned Parenthood, think again. Planned Parenthood is a master of false advertising, and Tonya fell into their trap. They seduce vulnerable women into their web by promising that abortion and killer birth control drugs will solve all of life’s problems. They lie!"

She continued, " I was once a victim of the lies of Planned Parenthood". http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm

One of the arguments for legalizing abortion is that it supposedly would put unlicensed "back alley abortionists" out of business. That isn't the case in Illinois where unlicensed abortionists are able to ply their trade in visible locations. They may use sterilized instruments instead of rusty coat hangers, but patients can still die needlessly. Legalized abortion hasn't put "back alley abortionists" out of business. Legalized abortion merely allows the old back alley abortionists to operate legally.

Competent caring professional health care providers should have recognized that something had gone wrong with Tonya's operation and either provided her the help she needed or taken her to a facility that could help her.

Reaves death isn't anything new. Chicago Sun Times reporter Mary Mitchell recalled that when she was a teenager two of her friends had complications from abortions. They went home afterward, went to bed and bled to death. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/13957308-452/death-of-tonya-reaves-after-an-abortion-is-a-reminder-that-abortions-carry-risks.html

Removing any material from deep inside the body is major surgery and should not be taken lightly. Competent doctors recognize that mistakes can happen and things can go wrong for no apparent reason, They must be prepared to take immediate corrective action. Women who experience significant bleeding after an abortion should at the very least stay in a hospital for observation. Bleeding after an operation isn't necessarily the same as the bleeding associated with a woman's period. Bleeding after an operation can indicate a broken blood vessel that must be fixed.

Unlicensed medical facilities are what we might have expected to find serving black residents in southern cities like Birmingham, Alabama, or Philadelphia, Mississippi, during the Jim Crow era 60 years ago. There is no excuse for women of any color to have to rely on unlicensed medical facilities in major cities in the 21st Century.

Democrats falsely claim that by supporting abortion they are doing something to benefit women. The Democrats willingness to allow unlicensed and thus possibly incompetent personnel to provide abortion services that kill women indicates that Democrats don't care about women. If Democrats really cared about women they would have required states to provide women the same protection from poorly run health facilities that states provide men many years ago. If President Barack Obama cared about women he would have already closed down the unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion mills in his home state instead of allowing them to kill black women.

Reply 22 comments from Reasonmclucus Greg Cooper Cait McKnelly Pastor_bedtime Oldexbeat Grammaddy Scarlett Mike Ford Autie Beatrice and 9 others

Lame Duck Session May Do Nothing

Those who are expecting the Lame Duck session of Congress to deal with controversial issues like taxes and immigration may be disappointed. The lame duck Demcrats who lost their reelection bids may not have to worry about voter reaction to their votes, but the Senators racing reelection in 2012 have a lot to worry about.

Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012 may prefer to avoid dealing with any controversial issues because a vote either way could reduce the chance of being reelected. A Democrat who votes one way on an issue could motivate a strong Republican to run in 2012. A vote the other way might provoke a fellow Democrat to challenge in the primary.

The Democrats who were first elected in 2006 have the most to worry about because voters chose them more to protest President George W. Bush than from any real support for the Democratic Party.

Those facing reelection in 2012 will be in the spotlight during the lame duck session. No one cares what the lame ducks do. There won't be much interest in those Senators up for reelection in 2014

After the new Congress takes over in January some of the media attention will shift to the House and the new Republican Senators.

Reply

Democrats Are Elitists - Not Liberals

Why do Republicans like Rush Limbaugh continue to help out Democrats be calling them "liberals" even though most Democrats are ultraconservative elitists?

Rush's listeners might consider the word "liberal" a bad name, but many others, including most political journalists don't. Many journalists seem to think that American politics involves a contest between good guys and bad guys like a 50's tv western. Many also believe that "liberals" are the good guys and "conservatives" are the bad guys.

Most journalists have no idea what a "liberal" is but assume that the people Rush Limbaugh calls "liberals" are the ones they should support. most Democrats are ultraconservative elitists?

Rush's listeners might consider the word "liberal" a bad name, but many others, including most political journalists don't. Many journalists seem to think that American politics involves a contest between good guys and bad guys like a 50's tv western. Many also believe that "liberals" are the good guys and "conservatives" are the bad guys.

Most journalists have no idea what a "liberal" is but assume that the people Rush Limbaugh calls "liberals" are the ones they should support.

The reality is that election contests are often between two "good guys" with an honest difference of opinion or between two people who resemble the characters Clint Eastwood played in western movies. Eastwood played the characters that you weren't sure were good guys or bad guys or somewhere in between.

Some contests are even between competing groups of crooks. Illinois has had recent governors from both parties in legal trouble. Maryland had a similar problem in the 70's.

With the possible exception of personal morals, Democrats are often the antithesis of liberals.

Political liberals should be open minded, but Democrats, like ultraconservatives, tend to believe they are Right about everything and anybody who disagrees is Wrong. Democrats seem unable to comprehend the possibility of any other proposals than theirs. A real liberal believes your ideas are just as likely to be valid as his.

When the Reagan administration loosened some federal regulations, the process was called "liberalization". Democrats favor increased regulations with large bureaucracies to enforce them. Such an approach is inherently ultraconservative because in the long run it discourages change. If current regulations don't work, Democrats take the ultraconservative approach that the answer is more regulations and more regulators even though the problem may be the current regulations are unworkable or aren't being enforced as happened in the recent recession.

No real liberal would favor a health care measure that uses police state methods to force people to buy health insurance whether they think they can afford it or not.

Liberals believe the state exists to serve the people. Democrats believe people should be forced to serve the interests of the state.

Real liberals should ignore differences in skin color. Democrats take an Archie Bunker approach to ethnic issues. When the prejudiced Archie describes a balanced ticket to his son-in-law Michael as a ticket consisting of a black guy, a Jew, an Italian...and a "regular American" (i.e., a white person like Archie). Democrats may not use Archie's terms but they treat whites as "regular Americans" and insist on using special terms for non-whites. Even though the first African, Anthony Johnson, arrived in Jamestown in 1620, Democrats insist that dark skinned Americans be called "African Americans" as if they were recent arrivals.

A real liberal would treat a graduate of Eureka College as potentially being the equal of a graduate of Harvard. or Yale. Democrats tend to believe that Ivy League graduates are the best and the brightest in spite of the fact that Ivy League grads sent half a million of us to Vietnam for no apparent reason other than they didn't want to lose the Vietnam War before the next election.

Leaders of the Democrats tend to suffer from the delusion that they are better than other people. They may think they are better because of their economic status, the status of their ancestors or the schools they attended.

Elitists are like such tv characters as Mrs. Drysdale on the "Beverly Hillbillies", the Howells on "Gilligan's Island".

Elitists often believe they are privileged characters who can do whatever they want like the Wall Street Bums who insisted on being paid bonuses for wrecking their companies and the economy. Members of the elite sometimes get away with things the rest of us would be punished for, such as Sen Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge and leaving his passenger to die.

Many of the old rich believe they are better because of the actions of their ancestors even though those "Robber Baron" ancestors got their position by wrecking the environment or mistreating their employees. The ultimate elite are the royal families of Europe whose founding members were cut throats who took power through violence and killed or imprisoned anyone who was in their way including members of their own families.

I'm too cynical to be a liberal because liberals tend to be optimists. We could use some liberals today because unlike most Democrats and Republicans liberals tend to be pragmatic rather than ideological. Liberals would recognize that dealing with problems requires an approach between the rigid government regulations favored by Democrats and the no government attitude of Republicans.

Of course there is a danger with liberals. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, "Liberal institutions straightway cease from being liberal the moment they are soundly established: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough enemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions."

Reply

Republicans Better than Democrats at Jobs

Some Democrats are complaining that Republicans have no new ideas. So what. Neither do the Democrats.

When Obama took office he suggested implementing programs like those used by Franklin Roosevelt during the Depression Obama ignored the fact that Roosevelt's programs didn't end the Depression.

New ideas would be desirable, but we won't get them from either major party. Thus we should consider which party's "old ideas" are better.

Political activists like to treat the economy as if the President was controlling it from his magical White House by figuratively pulling levers and pushing buttons. However, Congressional action may affect the economy more than the President's actions, because the President depends upon Congress to implement his recommendations and Congress can introduce its own programs.

An examination of unemployment Labor Department statistics over the last 20 years indicates unemployment was lower when Republicans controlled Congress than when Democrats controlled Congress. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Unemployment was 5.2% when Republicans took control of Congress in January, 1995. Unemployment dropped to 3.9% just before the small recession that began at the end of the Clinton administration due to the failure of many Internet companies -- The Dot Com Bust.

Unemployment rose to 5.0% by the time 9/11 occurred. After 9/11 unemployment began a slow rise to 6.3% in June, 2003 and then fell back to 4.4% in December, 2006, just before control of Congress shifted to the Democrats.

During the 1st year of Democratic control of Congress unemployment rose back up to 4.7% and continued to rise in 2008 reaching 6.1% by August. Unemployment continued to rise through 2009. It has stabilized above 9.5%.

The last Republican Congress was able to get unemployment back down after it rose. The current Democratic cannot.

If Democrats had any ideas about how to get unemployment back down they would have implemented those ideas. It's time to see if the Republicans' "old ideas" can do any better.

The combination of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President worked well in the nineties. It's time to try it again even though Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

Reply

Democrats Exploiting Latina Housekeeper

Democrats have been making a big issue of the fact that Meg Whitman's former Latina housekeeper is in the country illegally. Democrats are apparently hoping Hispanics will ignore the fact that they have had a chance to change immigration law, but have refused to do so.

It must be great to live in a state that doesn't have any significant problems. Or, did former governor (1975-1983) Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown bring up Republican opponent Meg Whitman's hiring of an illegal immigrant because he has no idea how to deal with California's current problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/03/MNGG1FNGTV.DTL

Whitman hired Nicandra "Nicky" Diaz Santillan as a housekeeper at a generous wage of $23 an hour after being shown documents indicating Diaz Santillan was in the country legally. Whitman fired Diaz Santillan after being told she was in the country illegally, but told Diaz Santillan she wouldn't be reported to authorities. Whitman had come to think of Diaz Santiallan as a member of the family and thus wasn't willing to report her to authorities..

Whitman did Diaz Santillan a favor by firing her before Whitman entered the public arena as a candidate for governor. People in the country illegally need to avoid public attention to avoid discovery. Employees of politicians are automatically in the spotlight.

Diaz Santillan wanted Whitman to help her stay in the country legally, but that would probably have been impossible for a Republican politician during a Democratic administration In fact attempting to do so might have caused the government to deport Diaz Santillan.

If you watch cop or lawyer shows you will notice that competent attorneys advise clients who have been arrested to not tell the police anything.

Gloria Allred apparently doesn't care about protecting the rights of her client Nicandra "Nicky" Diaz Santillan. Allred told everyone, including law enforcement officers, that Diaz Santillan was guilty of violating immigration law even though Santillan wasn't in custody and law enforcement officers may not have even suspected she was illegally in the country. Diaz Santillan could be in trouble unless Allred has worked out a secret deal with President Barack Obama to allow Diaz Santillan to avoid prosecution if she helps the Democrats win California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_A...

If immigration authorities want people to take the law seriously they have no choice but to arrest Santillan for being in the country illegally, identity theft and lying on income withholding forms. Failure to take action would imply that those who help Democratic politicians are above the law. I wonder if immigration authorities are prepared to explain their actions to a Republican congressional committee. http://www.cis.org/mortensen/whitman-maid-document-fraud

If I were more ambitious I would try to find out if Allred has made any comments about Arizona's immigration law. She seems to share the opinion of Arizona authorities that Hispanics should automatically be suspected of being in the country illegally. Allred claims that Meg Whitman should have known Diaz Santiallan was in the country illegally when she received a letter from the Social Security Administration referring to a discrepancy in Diaz Santillan's name and social security number.

Allred hopes we won't read the letter which explicitly states "this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status." The letter warns that it "is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee such as laying off, suspending, firing or discriminating against the employee. Any employer who uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against the employee may violate state or federal law or be subject to legal consequences." http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16218378?source=pkg

The normal assumption for a letter about a female employee indicating her name and Social Security number didn't match would be that she changed her name without notifying the Social Security Administration.

The fact that Whitman paid Diaz Santillan $23 an hour indicates Whitman didn't know Diaz Santillan was in the country illegally. In 2007, most non-Boeing aircraft workers in Washington made less than $23 an hour. Those who knowingly employ people who are in the country illegally typically pay them very low wages.

Diaz Santiallan's claim that she wasn't paid for some hours worked sounds like the type of disagreement that can normally occur between employer and employee. The complaint about not being paid for running errands might make sense if Diaz Santillan hadn't being paid $23 an hour. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=73851

Diaz Santialln wouldn't have much chance in a civil suit against Whitman because Diaz Santillan has admitted lying about her immigration status and her identity.

Democrats are clearly using Diaz Santillan for political purposes and its unlikely they care as much about her as Meg Whitman does. Whitman tried to help Diaz Santillan stay in the country the only way Whitman could by severing ties with Diaz Santillan so that the publicity surrounding Whitman wouldn't expose her status.

The exposure Diaz Santillan has received may make it impossible for her to find another job because she has told everyone she is here illegally.

The incident demonstrates what is wrong with immigration law. Potential terrorists like the Times Square bomber and the 9/11 hijackers can enter the country legally, but a hard working mother like Diaz Santuillan has to sneak in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Tim...

Democrats have had two years to change immigration law since Barack Obama became President. The fact they haven't done so indicates they like the law just the way it is. Democrats want foreign manual labor in the country, but they want the workers to have to enter the country illegally so their friends can hire the illegal immigrants at substandard wages.

Democrats have changed health care and bank regulations. Why haven't they changed immigration?

Reply

Tea Party Critics Don’t Get It

Critics of the Tea Party movement suffer from the delusion that the lack of specific complaints means there isn't really anything wrong.

Have you ever had a craving for something, but couldn't decide exactly what you wanted to eat? Perhaps you remember the Star Trek episode in which Mr. Spock was temporarily in command and Scotty was complaining that the ship "didn't feel right" even though he couldn't say what specifically was wrong.

Do you sometimes feel sick, but have trouble describing exactly what is wrong with your body?

Many of the Tea Party participants are in such a situation. They believe something is wrong with the country, but aren't sure what it is.

We shouldn't expect them to have analyzed our society and government to determine what is actually wrong. Most are average citizens rather than political scientists or sociologists who devote their time to studying government and society.

Political scientists often use the term "alienated" to describe a situation in which average voters aren't connected to government officials or government in general.

Some may be reacting to the way government or politicians have treated them or just concerned about government becoming too intrusive. Perhaps they know someone whom government has mistreated. They may feel that government services aren't worth what it is costing them in taxes, particularly local taxes such as sales taxes and property taxes.

Some may be upset by overly aggressive government efforts to control personal behavior such as seat belt laws or excessive taxes on tobacco. Even many of us who have never smoked recognize that smokers don't threaten our safety the way drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs do.

Elected officials are often isolated from voters. The media encourages this isolation by hiring reporters, editors and news anchors who act as if they have a duty to serve politicians rather than the general public.

Many journalists are like the emperor's supporters in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes who refuse to consider that the reason they can't see his new clothes is because he doesn't have any. Instead of trying to keep their party "honest": by looking for flaws in its policies, they blindly support those policies. Journalists refuse to consider the possibility that "Emperor" Obama has no clothes on.

For example, Obama and his media slaves continue to ignore the obvious con involved in claims about global warming. Even those who don't know enough science to know that the theory behind greenhouse gases was disproved a century ago, recognize that claims that humans can control the temperature of the air isn't believable.

Investment cons are often recognizable because they sound too good to be true. Political cons sound too bad to be true like the claim that the polar ice caps will all melt or Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda.

Media critics complain about Tea Party supporters turning to Republicans like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck. What choice do people have? The only choices provided by the media are the Democrats and the people at Fox.

If alternative views exist, the media are ignoring them. If media critics don't like the choice Tea Party members are making, they should look for other alternatives to the rejected ideas of the Democrats.

Reply