The Influence of Ignorance

Share via email

If you were to ask the average Liberal who they think donates the most directly from their personal fortune into political coffers the almost guaranteed Pavlovian response would be the evil Koch brothers.  The problem with this response is that it is not only wrong, it’s wrong to the point of being laughable.  The true bearer of that crown belongs to someone whose name most Liberals have probably never even heard before.  His name is Tom Steyer and 100% of his $73,725,000 personal donations last year went to benefit Democrats.  Ironically, the Koch brothers combined personal direct donations of $2,000,000 each ranked them as tied for 24th with a combined political influence ratio of about 1/18th that of Steyer. 

So who is Tom Steyer and why such a largesse to liberalism.  Well, here’s where it gets interesting.  The bulk of Mr. Steyer’s financial efforts have gone toward killing the Keystone Pipeline.  Remember his infamous pledge of up to $50 Million in matching campaign funds to any politicians willing to vote against Keystone?  So this must make him a true blood environmentalist, right?  Wrong!  According to the real reason for his generosity has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with the fact that his hedge fund Farallon Capital is already heavily invested in building a competing pipeline.  In other words greed tops green. 

In another twist of irony there are several high profile liberal donors on this list that far outrank the Koch brothers yet whose names always seem to magically disappear when the Left mentions the sin of wealth influencing politics.  Former New York City Mayor/Billionaire Michael Bloomberg ranks as #2 behind Steyer at $23.76 million.  George Soros came in at #10 with $3.56M.  In fact, there were 7 noted liberals ranked above the Koch brothers whose names never get passed liberal lips when such topics come up for discussion. 

I’m quite certain that the immediate outcry from the Left is that this list isn’t fair because it only looks at personal donations instead of the institutional donations that the Koch brothers control.  Fair enough.  According to from 1989-2014 the largest single institutional political donor was none other than the union SEIU whose $210 million in charity for democratic politicians far outpaced the #2 donor with a paltry $146 million.  So where was Koch Industries?  They were clear down at #56 with a meager $25 million, or a political influence ratio of roughly 1/8th that of SEIU. 

Once you see the facts it becomes pretty apparent as to what’s really going on.  The vitriol aimed against the Koch brothers has nothing to do with how much political influence their money might afford them.  It has everything to do with how much CONSERVATIVE political influence their money might afford them.  The problem is that what also becomes apparent is the combination of blatant hypocrisy of the left wing media along with the blatant stupidity of the left wing morons who regurgitate yet more talking points for which they are totally clueless. 

Is there a problem with there being too much money in politics?  Of course, but it’s a problem that’s existed since politics itself has existed, so don’t go expecting anything to create change in our lifetime that doesn’t involve the word tyranny.  However, for as much as we all like to whine about how wealth has the potential to influence elections as I see it there is an even bigger issue which if addressed would have a much more profound affect on election outcomes.  If you ever want to have real and honest elections the first issue we need to overcome is what I like to call the influence of ignorance.  

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Falsehood of a Moral War

Share via email

Can someone please show me where it is written that it’s morally superior to incinerate someone from 35,000 feet than it is to give them an inverted bathtub scrub down?  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m perfectly fine with having arm chair flyboys turning goat humpers into charcoal briquettes from the safety of a console that can later be used to pickup Monday Night Football.  However, it’s hard to collect usable intel from ashes. 

Democrats are currently running around making fools of themselves whining about the “evil Bush/Cheney regime” and their torturous ways while referencing a report containing information that is as old as Ed Shultz hairstyle and just as partisan.  The reality is that anyone possessing an IQ level above that of a turnip can easily recognize this as nothing more than yet another media induced political distraction.  It doesn’t surprise me to see more media misdirection though.  After all, it only took NBC 46 days to finally admit that Obamacare architect Jonathon Gruber is nothing but a loud mouthed dim wit with MIT credentials. 

The truth about all this supposed torture is that I don’t think most Americans mind.  If it weren’t so politically incorrect I would even venture far enough to say that silently most even cheer it.  After all, it’s hard not to maintain moral superiority over an enemy that beheads aid workers, stones women for simply wanting an education, and executes innocent children as heretics, even those young enough that their theological persuasion has yet to reach beyond their mother’s teat. 

Only a fool believes that such a thing as a sanitized war exists.  Personally, I’m not a big fan of war, but at the same time I’m even less a fan of watching 3,000 people evaporate for the simple sin of showing up for work on time on a sunny September morning.  The reality is that the only moral rule of war is that you should only go to war for the sole purpose of winning even if it requres any means necessary.  In that same vane you should only ask the military to carry out the role that all militaries are built for which is to kill people and break things.  Leave the peacekeeping concept and moral compass guilt to the politicians who AREN’T getting shot at. 

There are liberal elitist that love to blame everything on the U.S. and see this war as an extension of the revenge we deserve for our “immorally imperialistic ways”.  However, trying to get them to explain why this same enemy is attacking places far beyond our borders and apparent lack of national morality such as Australia, France, Spain, Russia, etc. is like trying to get my hound dog to explain the thermodynamic properties of the sun.  We’re facing an enemy that knows no boundaries when it comes to committing atrocities so it’s no wonder that national boundaries haven’t mattered much either? 

Like it or not we are facing an enemy that is pure evil.  They don’t want to compromise.  They don’t want to understand us or be our friend.  Nor do they want to negotiate with infidels.  They only want one thing, which is to collect their virgins by making the rest of us perish.  Therefore, the very idea that White House wannabe Hillary Clinton would naively suggest that we should forego any possible tools that will lead us to victory and instead show “empathy for our enemies” makes about as much sense as walking through a den of starving lions while wearing Lady Gaga’s infamous meat dress. 

It’s impractical to fight the good fight by bounding your own hands against an unrestrained enemy.  The true moral outrage is when we put good people in harms way by exposing this ridiculous report.  There’s no such thing as a fair fight in a struggle that involves life and death so enough with putting people in peril for the sole purpose of political posturing.  Personally, I don’t care if we utilize the Bush approach of gathering intel one ripped out finger nail at a time at the same time we also use Obama’s more politically correct route of delivering 500 pound “care packages” from on high, just as long as the end result is that evil always loses and good people survive.  In the mean time Hillary can lecture us all she wants on her own version of moral diplomacy.  However, I would strongly suggest she not get caught in the cross hairs when the practical diplomacy arrives. 

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Liberals Really ARE Stupid

Share via email

Liberals hate the fact that I’m constantly calling them stupid, but not nearly as much as I hate the fact that they ARE stupid.  In reality I’m not really calling them stupid as much as I’m simply pointing it out.  On the other hand Obamacare chief architect Jonathon Gruber has been caught on video multiple times admitting that the Obamacare bill was nothing but a big fat mathematical lie that was purposefully written with convoluted language in order to play on the stupidity of the American voter (read stupid Liberals).  While Conservatives didn’t fall for such a ridiculous hoax and voted against it, those who voted for Obama and his Democratic cronies that passed this amongst their other horrible bills have proven Gruber right.  Liberals are stupid! 

Liberals like to call me mean for pointing out their idiocy.  In reality it’s those very same stupid Liberals who are actually the mean ones.  After all, if I call someone a name they don’t like (regardless of the truth behind it) the worst that can happen is some hurt feelings.  Conversely, those who voted for Obama and his agenda have done far more damage to innocent people than I could ever dream of. 

For example, let’s take a look at the absolute stupidity of granting this administration so much power over the EPA and the energy markets.  Only a complete moron would buy into the whole global warming hype and grant so much power to such deviants without ever questioning the truth behind the sermon they were preaching.  To the average Liberal their reasoning has always been damn the consequences as long as I can feel good about myself for “caring”.  Heaven forbid they ever look at the long term affect of such stupidity (hence why I refer to Liberals in my book as “one step forward thinkers”).  Now that the evidence strongly suggests that global warming has been nothing but a great big lie just like Obamacare it’s the very same indigent people that Liberals claim to care so much about that are about to suffer the consequences of such lunacy. 

Let’s take a look at Massachusetts to see just how bad those consequences are about to become.  Because of the EPA’s curtailing of coal and gas fired electric production facilities in order to curb carbon emission on a problem that doesn’t even exist electric demand is now greater than our ability to supply it through cheaper means thus causing the price to go through the roof.  National Grid, the main default electric distributor for Massachusetts just got a massive rate hike approved in order to offset the cost of providing electricity to the state.  For residential consumers the hike was 37% (or $33/month for the average consumer).  This means that for as much as Liberals claim to care about “starving Grandmas” they allowed their stupidity to slap Grandma with an additional $33/month in extra expenses needlessly.  If that’s what “caring” looks like I think Grandma would probably prefer apathy.  This hike isn’t based on corporate greed.  It’s based on liberal stupidity. 

But wait, it gets worse!  The average rate for non-residential energy for that same market has basically doubled.  At this point anyone with at least ½ a brain (thus obviously precluding Liberals) knows that businesses don’t actually pay things like taxes and energy.  Instead they are either able to pass those costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices or they go out of business and take their jobs with them.  So the real net cost to Grandma isn’t just $33/month, but far higher as the cost of basically everything else she spends her meager fixed income on goes up in unison.  I hope if you’re a Liberal you’re starting to feel a bit queasy by now for your misdeeds.  Massachusetts isn’t on its own when it comes to soaring energy prices.  We are starting to see similar rate hikes appearing all across the nation thanks to those that were so willing to accept lies over reality. 

The failed stimulus package saddled every man, woman, and child with an additional $3,000 in debt for an idea that it was easy to see was doomed from the beginning.  With Obamacare Liberals claim that more people now have health insurance than before.  OH REALLY!  Try doing the math on using it.  Forget the skyrocketing premiums.  The average bronze plan has a $5,000 deductible and a 60/40 co-pay which means you’ll either be dead or have already filed for bankruptcy long before you ever see the first dime of benefits.  The use of food sources to produce the failed product ethanol has caused food prices to soar.  All of these costly ideas were based solely on the stupidity of liberalism and those who support it.  In essence it has all been based on lousy policies brought forth from politicians who were voted in by Liberals who, as their own Jonathon Gruber put it, were too stupid to know the difference.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Election Aftermath

Share via email

Now that the midterms are finally over and Republicans have taken back control of both houses of Congress it’s time to get to work and figure out the best way to right this ship.  First, in order to do that we need to assess some of what we’ve learned from the outcome.  Here are a few highlights:


  • Hillary Clinton will NOT be our next President.  Even though the Clinton dynasty wasn’t officially on the ballot, it actually was.  For as much stumping as the Billary twins did over the last couple of weeks the results are unmistakable that not only did they not help their protégé’s, but most likely did more harm than good.  Not only did none of them win, but the polling margins slipped post stump for most of their favorites.  In a nut shell they were almost as toxic as the golfer-in-chief during this campaign.
  • Offense works better in politics than defense.  Finally the Republican contingency got it right by not allowing themselves to get suckered into a defensive posture.  Instead, they forced their Democratic opponents into a corner on explaining their own indefensible positions of the past (i.e. voting for Obamacare).  Alison Grimes was the perfect example of just how inept Liberals can be once they get exposed for being brainless morons who can’t explain their own votes.
  • Obamacare is still the key.  Exit polling proves there is no question that it is an albatross still hanging around the necks of anyone who had anything to do with its passage.
  • Unions lost big.  Not only did the sky not fall on producing right-to-work legislation in deep blue states, but the two key Governors leading the charge, Walker from Wisconsin and Snyder of Michigan both won re-election.  Now is the perfect time for Kasich to try it again in Ohio except this time he needs do so using much better legislation than the former SB-5.
  • This was NOT an anti-incumbent movement as the talking heads are trying to claim.  This was without a doubt an anti-liberal movement.  Otherwise, try explaining why almost all of the flipped seats came from the “D” column.
  • The idiotic “war on women” movement is done.  Not only did it prove to be a totally useless slogan against Republicans, but the 3 main Democratic characters at the forefront of the slogan were all soundly defeated as well.  Perhaps Democrats would be wise to take note of just how many Republican women won elections last night as well.
  • Probably one of the biggest surprises along with also being the one with the most long term affect is that the concept of minority block voting is starting to crumble.  After years of buying into the false promises of liberalism minorities appear to be waking up to the realization that opportunity offers a better life than dependency.  The Democratic strategy of relying heavily on minority votes in urban areas like Baltimore, Boston, and Chicago didn’t work as these groups started questioning why the promises of the Democrats haven’t led to any semblance of a utopian dream.  As a result several deep blue states turned closer to a shade of purple with Maryland, Massachusetts, and even Illinois electing new Republican governors.
  • Ultimately when it came down to priorities between party, politics, or policy, the public overwhelmingly proved that policy is by far the most important.  Not only did many of the Left’s mantras like “war on women” not work, but the myth of states being forever favoring one party over another was also shattered.


So where should Republicans go from here?  Here are a few pointers to consider:


  • First, and most importantly, DON’T buy into the media premise that this election was all about creating a new era of bipartisanship.  That’s total bunk.  This election had everything to do with a public outcry against liberalism.  After all, Congress was already evenly divided.  If being bipartisan was the answer than nothing would have changed.  Nor would the losers have all come from one party.  This election wasn’t about getting along.  It was about getting it right, PERIOD!  Therefore, Republicans should know what they believe in; understand it enough to explain it to the people instead of jamming it down their throats, and pass legislation accordingly.  There is no need to compromise with what the public has already rejected as bad policies.  Furthermore, when it comes to creating new policy Obama is bound to threaten a veto.  Great!  Go ahead and let him.  All the while continue to remind him that he was the one that declared “elections have consequences”.  That way if he does veto bills en masse it simply gives you the chance to prove who the real obstructionists have been all along. 
  • Second, the Republicans need to pass legislation to repeal Obamacare.  Yes, I know the boring outcry of it being an act of futility.  In reality it won’t be this time and the reason is simple.  By finally bringing such a bill up in the Senate democratic members will be forced to either vote to repeal it or keep it.  If you thought Obama was toxic the fact is Obamacare is even more so.  So either they will be committing political suicide by voting against such a repeal which will help in 2016, or they will become yet another repeal vote.  Now surely Obama would veto such a bill, right?  Yes, but all that does is give the Senate yet another chance at reaffirming the votes of those still in love with such a horribly unpopular piece of legislation by forcing a veto override vote as well.
  • Don’t get suckered into the immigration debate without passing stand alone legislation that secures our borders first.  Almost all of the election polling showed that it is actually a very minor priority when stacked up against some of the other current issues we need to be dealing with.  Anytime Obama does try to bring it up you should simply remind him that the crisis isn’t being created by our existing laws as much as it’s being created by the lack of enforcement of our existing laws.
  • DO NOT pass a single Obama nomination through the Senate unless Obama finally lets the Keystone Pipeline move forward.


Even though constitutionally one Obama still equals one Congress, that doesn’t mean we can’t start the ball rolling toward getting this nation back on track.  Regardless of what bills Republicans do manage to get enacted they’ve got 2 years to prove they are willing to do what’s right.  What we don’t need is another squandered opportunity like we had after ’94.  Therefore, the task of the Republican Party for the next two years is to re-establish their core beliefs and then both live and defend them.  

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Glories of Gridlock

Share via email

Most people like to whine about how our government is in seemingly perpetual gridlock.  To the contrary, I’m probably one of only a few people that actually celebrate it.  Typically, when I tell people this the immediate response I get back is that they think I’m some sort of government hating anarchist.  I’m not.  Quite the contrary, I feel government has a very distinct and vital roll to play.  The difference is that I prefer that when it plays that role it does so correctly.  In other words, I don’t want action merely for the sake of action.  

Think of it this way.  If the headlights went out on your car and you were totally in the dark would you still try to drive blindly and risk catastrophe simply so that you could say the car was at least moving, or would it be better to wait until daylight when you can at be assured that you aren’t heading off a cliff?  Government should work the same way.  Unfortunately, too often our elected officials prefer the blind method either because they don’t really care where we’re heading as long as they get to drive, or they’ll do whatever just to shut up the whiney public sitting in the back, or because they don’t want us to know where they actually plan on taking us. 

There is a profound difference between proving yourself right and proving someone else wrong.  We often wonder why politics is so negative, but it’s because politician have learned that we as the voting public have gotten lazy by accepting the premise that just because politician A can prove politician B’s answer wrong that it somehow makes politician A’s answer right.  The problem is that axiom rarely holds true.  Quite often BOTH politicians hold the wrong answer.  Often times we figure this out too late simply because we as voters rarely demand that our candidate actually explain and prove their own answers during campaigns.  This is why so often when it comes time to vote we must do so while holding our nose simply because it isn’t about who has the right answers, but rather whose answers just didn’t get proven wrong. 

Far too often we go with the politician who tells us the things we want to hear instead of the logical things we need to hear.  For example, any idiot can tell us with great amounts of emotion about how we need to feed the hungry.  Unfortunately, they haven’t shed light on anything useful until they can tell us HOW to do so in a practical and sustainable manner.  We need to stop voting for politicians who sway us through the darkness of our feelings and instead vote for the politicians who can at least sway us through the light of our thinking.  As I’ve said many times before, governance merely through good intentions isn’t good governance.  It makes no more sense than driving blindly just to keep the car moving. 

Our nation was founded on the principle that government isn’t meant to be the answer to most of our everyday needs.  That role is meant to be maintained by the people themselves.  In reality government is meant to be kept in the background of our daily lives, not the foreground.  That’s because no single man or group of men holds all the correct answers to all of our problems, nor is every correct answer correct for every person.  Therefore, I prefer gridlock simply because moving this nation is like trying to move an entire school bus full of children.  I would prefer we do so in the light of correct answers when we know exactly what lies ahead than taking great risk with an entire nation left wandering thru the dangers hidden in the dark.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Common Problem

Share via email

Common Core can best be described as the common problem.  What I’ve found as I discuss this issue with folks across the political spectrum is that what we are dealing with is something that strangely enough doesn’t even appear to be a partisan issue.  Ironically, I’ve talked with just as many Liberals that hate Common Core as I have Conservatives.  So the simple question is why do we still have this horrible beast lurking about? 

Our educational system has many shortcomings.  We have a tendency to fail our kids on a plethora of levels with everything from too little funding, to too much wasteful spending, not enough staffing, to not enough staff that are really fit to be educators in the first place.  We’ve got a shortfall of parental involvement in some schools paired with an over abundance of political correctness in others.  All the while we have public officials scratching their heads wondering how they can continue to compete against their online, charter, and private adversaries that are just as willing to cash the per pupil government subsidy checks as our public schools are. 

All of that aside, one of the biggest problems we have has to do with how our schools have been forced to re-allocate the resources they currently have.  In the last 30 years our national student population has gone up by a mere 8% as the “boomer” generation moved on and was replaced by the less “fruitful” loins of the Gen-X’s, the Millenials, etc.  However, during that same period the number of educational staff has literally doubled.  Now this all sounds like it would make things easier on our educators, right?  Wrong! 

The problem is that while student population growth has been far outpaced by the growth of staff, the staff growth has been far outpaced by bureaucratic requirements.  Our kids are no longer viewed as cherub like mush brains eagerly waiting to be molded into the next generation of geniuses.  Instead they’ve become nothing more than collective demographic statistic on an ever growing docket of useless governmental spreadsheets.  Instead of educating our children, our educators are forced to spend all their time charting them.  God help us anytime one of these precious little potential prodigies falls out of the norm and into the category of “special needs”. 

Common Core really does two things.  First, it adds nothing more to benefit the students, but instead adds yet another layer of bureaucracy onto an already overburdened system.  With Common Core our teachers will not only be chasing yet another chart, but they’ll be doing so by teaching to a test instead of testing what was taught.  Second, Common Core infuses the potential for pushing political agenda’s by virtue of testing based on certain political premises.  If you don’t believe me than ask yourself a simple question.  How can a “common” testing system possibly be the primary goal when that testing system can’t even be accomplished in a common language? 

Both students and teachers are different as are their corresponding needs and styles.  Sure there are certain things that all kids need to know by the time they graduate, but we’ve already got plenty of tests that provide that feedback.  When it comes to learning all kids have a natural pace that is combined with natural desires for where they want their education to take them in that next phase of life.  Common Core is nothing more than a centralized pigeon hole for the masses where all kids are forced to fit into the same round hole regardless of their original size or shape. 

Personally, I’ve always believed that education is best handled by those with the greatest interest in how it gets handled.  This translates into the closer we can keep the control at home the better off we are.  It also means that instead of using Common Core as an even greater measure of centralized control we should abolish the Department of Education all together and push control back down toward the state and local communities where it belongs.  Heck, even Hillary Clinton said “It takes a village to raise a child”, but she never said anything about needing a federal government.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Importance of the Vote

Share via email

As a Tea Party member who happens to live in Speaker John Boehner’s district I’m often asked the question about whether I plan to vote for the Speaker in the upcoming election or do I plan to simply sit that particular vote out.  After all, my rather staunch logically conservative nature has a tendency to get frustrated so often by conflicting with many of Boehner’s more centrist “establishment” positions on certain issues.  This same question came up in the last presidential election regarding Mitt Romney, the results of which perfectly explain why I not only still plan to vote, but to do so FOR Boehner.

 Contrary to what Democrats would like for us to believe Obama did not win re-election because of some overwhelming love that the people felt for his first term policies.  In fact, he actually lost about 3.5 million votes between his 2008 and 20012 totals.  So why did he still win?  The reason was because of all the votes of those who didn’t actually vote.  So am I suddenly becoming the type of conspiratorial theorist that I deride in my commentaries by accusing Democrats of massive voter fraud?  No!  Besides, that’s a topic for another day.  What I am saying is that Obama didn’t win, but instead Romney lost because of all the negative votes cast by virtue of voter apathy.  Are you confused yet?

 What most of us are taught is that ours is a one voter, one vote system.  This isn’t actually true.  As my own parents taught me as I approached the very important voter eligible age is that what we really have is more of a two vote binary system where each voter has both a positive vote and a negative vote.  If you understand the laws of finite numbers you probably already understand this concept.  However, for those that are unfamiliar with such a concept please allow me to explain further. 

 Suppose there are two candidates and 100 potential voters.  If half were planning on voting for each candidate each would receive 50 votes thus creating a tie.  However, if one of those voters changed their mind and instead voted for the other guy the difference isn’t one, it’s two, with one candidate now winning by a 51-49 margin.  That’s because the new favorite candidate got a +1 (or a positive vote) and the old favorite received a -1 (or a negative vote).  Now suppose that the person who changed their mind simply decided instead to not vote at all.  Well, it still counts as a -1 vote for the old favorite which still breaks the tie thus causing the old favorite to lose by a 50-49 margin.  As you can see “not voting” is still an effective form of vote which is why in reality there is no such thing as not voting.  If you apply this principle to the 2012 election it’s easy to see based on the numbers that Obama didn’t win since his total actually declined, but rather Romney lost due to all the negative votes of those that mistakenly decided it would be better to sit out an election rather than voting for someone they didn’t agree with often enough.

 As an intelligent adult I’m smart enough to understand that I’m never going to find the perfect candidate that I agree with on every issue.  What I also understand is that voting is often times just as much about voting AGAINST someone as it is voting FOR someone.  Therefore, we must accept the idea of either voting for the candidate that most closely resembles our own positions, or at least voting against the person who least agrees with us.  This often translates into placing a vote where we must do so while holding our nose as I did in 2008 with John McCain.  I wasn’t as much a fan of McCain’s positions as I was against Obama’s socialistic agenda.

 My parents raised me with the understanding that voting is both a serious responsibility, but also a sacred duty based on the sacrifices of those who gave their fullest measure so that I might have such an opportunity in the first place.  They never pressured me on how to vote, but just how important it is that I should vote.  Since I’ve already let the cat out of the bag about who I plan to vote for the question many might be asking is whether my vote is actually based on being FOR Boehner or AGAINST any possibility of Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House ever again?  In truth it doesn’t really matter.  What does matter is that I plan on not disappointing either my parents or those that sacrificed so much regardless of why I end up voting the way I do.  I would suggest you do the same.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The ServePro President and the Doppelganger Democrats

Share via email

During the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns Obama and the Democrats were given a lot of credit for using technology as a platform to reach out to younger voters and rightly so.  Democratic strategist saw the potential weaponry of technology and social media and jumped out ahead of the curve in utilizing them as such.  Good for them.  However, as good of a sword as technology was at helping them defeat Republicans and win elections (at least until the slow motion Republicans finally get caught up) what Democrats forgot is that swords tend to have two edges.  Obama was quick to use one edge to aid him in his own elections, but now he, along with his Democratic minions, are getting sliced to pieces by the other edge of that sword.

 What Obama and his media cohorts forgot is that this same technology has muted their own influence in creating media messages.  Social media can report on things at an instant thus far outpacing the time slot based traditional media to the punch of reporting on events.  This means that not only does The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC not get to create a White House directed narrative anymore since they are now relegated to responding to instead of reporting on events, but they aren’t even most peoples main source of news at all anymore.  If you don’t believe me, just take a look at their latest ratings.  Democrats forgot that even though they can use social media, it’s not so easy to control it.

 However, there’s an even bigger issue that Obama still can’t seem to fathom that is shredding him and his image to bits.  The mainstream media has historically protected Obama by being able to control his image.  What Obama can’t seem to understand is that they can no longer perform that role and he is proving to be his own worst enemy every time he speaks.  Obama still wants to consider himself to be the ServePro President.  Basically, he says things to his base and then says something completely different out in public “like it never even happened”.  He, along with his fellow Democrats, still haven’t figured out that as national figures ANYTIME you say something there is ALWAYS someone there to both recording it verbatim as well as fact check it instantly against reality.

 For Obama to say things in a speech that are blatantly false makes him look either completely inept or completely out of touch with reality.  For him to say that Obamacare isn’t designed as an evolving healthcare system destined to morph into a single payer system when he has already been recorded at a union meeting saying exactly that is an easily provable lie.  For him to say that he’s not attacking the coal industry after he’s already been recorded on a radio show stating that he would bankrupt the industry is beyond simple deceit.  For him to say that it wasn’t his idea to pull out of Iraq after he’s already been recorded saying all along that it was his exact intent (and even taking a victory lap on the idea) is downright delusional.  Democrats have yet to figure out that recordings don’t lie, but politicians do.

 The toughest job in the world has to belong to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.  He’s tasked with the monumentally insane job of attempting to convince the masses that all those recordings of Democrats saying all those absolutely stupid things that they must later deny aren’t actually real.  Instead, they are the recorded product of some evil group of democratic doppelgangers most likely brought forth by virtue of a Koch Brothers séance.  Sadly, to the non-thinking Left it’s actually easier to accept some bizarre voodoo plot than it is to admit to their own stupidity for believing such hype in the first place.

 The democratic political strategy has always been based on denial.  Simply put, they’ll say whatever they want to excite their own base, but if you can’t prove they said it then you either misquoted them, or they take the ServePro route and act like it never even happened.  The problem is that the very technology that they so eagerly embraced to win elections is now becoming their own worst enemy.  It’s hard to paint the opposition as the demons now that all the opposition has to do is play back your own words to expose the truth.  Democrats were right in figuring out that technology has the potential to change the political landscape.   Now if only they could only convince the public that doppelgangers actually exist.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Truth of Ferguson

Share via email

Contrary to what both the media and the race baiting glory hounds that jump in front of any microphone they can find to stoke the fires of racial tension would like for us to believe what’s been going on in Ferguson, MO has nothing to do with racism (at least not in the conventional sense).  In fact, just like what we saw with Trayvon Martin, what actually happened between Michael Brown and the officer involved turns out to be the least relevant part of this whole story in as far as the media is concerned.  Before I tell you what’s really going on let’s go over a few simple facts: 

  • Just like with Trayvon Martin we now know for certain that Michael Brown wasn’t anything like the “gentle giant” being portrayed by the media.  After all, it’s hard to be confused with a cherub when you’re caught on video 10 minutes prior to being shot doing a strong armed robbery.
  • We know that this isn’t about justice for anyone.  After all, how can you claim you’re seeking justice when you are rioting not just before you have ALL the facts, but before you have ANY of the facts?  When your key witness also happens to be the suspect’s accomplice and it’s his testimony against an officer with 6 years on the force and a spotless record who should you logically believe?  Besides, how do you explain the cuts and bruises on the officer or the fact that the gun was fired from inside the patrol car if there wasn’t a struggle?
  • This case isn’t about fighting to protect our inner city youths from random acts of violence.  If that were true the riots wouldn’t be in Ferguson.  Instead they’d be in Chicago where there were 1,115 shootings (mostly black on black) in just the first 6 months of 2014.
  • This case isn’t about the violence associated with simply being poor and downtrodden.  After all, I grew up in Appalachia where basically everyone is poor and we didn’t riot in the streets on a whim to protest our plight.  We were smart enough to understand the basic logic that if you burn down the local grocery store that simply means you have to travel a lot further the next time you need groceries.

So what is this story that has sucked all the oxygen out of all other stories in the media about?  Simple!  It’s liberalism on parade in its true form.  In the book I wrote 3 years ago I described how liberalism actually works.  First you create as many diverse groups as you can conceive of (this is why we now live in a hyphenated society).  Next, you convince each of these groups that they are somehow being victimized by some mystically evil faceless force (like the boogey man in their closet, or Dick Cheney).  Finally, you convince them that if they were to pledge to you their blind faith and allegiance you and you alone as their leader can deliver them to nirvana.  So, what about if you fail?  Well, that’s just “the man” (i.e. the Koch brothers) keeping you down. 

It’s easy to see how this all gets put into practice.  Look at just a few of the diverse groups that are currently wearing the “victim” moniker:  Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, Muslims, left handed red heads with pigeon toes.  The list goes on and on, but the narrative is always the same.  You’ve been victimized therefore your life isn’t your fault.  The fact that Michael Brown had just committed a felony should be ignored in all of this simply because in some form or manner his actions were the justifiable traits of a victim, not a perpetrator. 

At this point, and we’ve already heard it, the liberal counter has been that $50 worth of cigars weren’t worth a man’s life.  However, even if this case were actually about what happened it isn’t about cigars.  It’s about the facts of what actually transpired between Brown and the officer.  Since there isn’t any collaborating audio or video then it all boils down to the credibility behind each version of accounts and how the evidence supports each version.  It should never boil down to how an overzealous media portrays things.  It should never be about accusations based on political strategy over truth. 

There are a lot of questions that still lack answers.  However, there are many questions that are easy to answer.  Should Brown have been shot if he were actually surrendering with his hands in the air?  No!  Should he have been shot if he were attacking the officer inside his patrol car as evidence currently suggests?  Yes!  Should the media stop reporting sensationalized and emotional hype and start reporting actual facts?  Yes!  Should the race baiters stop inciting mobs over racism until there is actual proof of racism?  Yes!  Should Obama spend more time worrying about things like a marine trapped in Mexico and leave this issue to local authorities?  Yes! 

In my book I suggested that the best way to defeat the victimhood mentality of liberalism is to rid ourselves of the hyphen.  We should stop portraying ourselves in the hyphenated format that divides us as a people (i.e. African-American, Asian-American, Native-American, etc.) and instead go with the simple moniker that unites us (American).  Then and only then can we find true equality.  Then and only then can we take control of our own lives and finally shed ourselves from the idea that we are all just victims of those lives.  Then and only then will we be able to focus on the facts instead of the politics behind such tragedies.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Questioning Our Own Paranoia

Share via email

Several years ago I was having a discussion with a self-proclaimed “health food nut”.  She was going on and on about how we are all destroying our bodies with chemicals and that she would never dream of touching anything that wasn’t purely organic.  So I ask her if she thought the government should go through with a ban on foods containing Alpha Tocopheryl Acetates.  Absolutely, she was all for such a ban.  That was until I told her that ATA is better known by its more common name Vitamin E. 

Most people tend to freak out about scary sounding things simply because they sound scary.  This same concept holds true when it comes to GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) related foods.  If all you ever want to do is buy into whatever the scary sounding hype of the day is then you’ll typically miss out on most of the real story.  For example, most people I know that fear GMO’s will quickly paint a mental picture whereby eating a modified ear of corn will automatically produce roughly the same type of affects as what Jeff Goldblum endured in the move “The Fly”.  However, what most people don’t realize is that they’ve been consuming GMO related products practically since birth.  After all, the simple cross pollination of plants is considered a form of GMO and that’s been going on for centuries. 

Many of the forms of foods we eat today weren’t even around a few centuries ago in their current state.  We’ve just never known the non-GMO versions.  For example, how do you think we’ve come up with so many different varieties of apples?  Take tequila as another example.  If you’ve ever had a shot of tequila you’ve most likely had the by-product of a genetically modified plant.  Most modern tequila comes from a plant that was modified to produce what is considered to be the perfect blue agave plant from which tequila is derived.  That perfect plant was then cloned such that now a farm with 10’s of thousands of the exact same cloned plant produces the bulk of the world’s supply of tequila.  Each plant is exactly the same as those around it and produces exactly 11 bottles of tequila. 

When most people think about GMO’s they think about all the potential chemicals that might be associated with the process of altering a plants DNA, but what they never seem to question is what chemicals are no longer involved.  For instance, GMO plants can often be generated that are bug resistant, hence no more need for pesticides.  Also, these types of plants can also be made to naturally fend off things like plant disease, poor soil, etc. so once again extra chemicals can be avoided during the growing process. 

However, the most important aspects of GMO’s aren’t just related to how they can grow, but what their growth means.  For example GMO fields can offer much greater yields to protect our food supply.  They can grow in environments that normal plants can’t grow in such as warmer or colder weather, poor soil quality, minimal moisture, etc.  This means that food sources can be kept closer to the food consumers for less spoilage.  Even more important still is that those foods that are grown can be of an enhanced variety so that each bite consumed presents greater nutritional value to the consumer which is important in famine prone areas to prevent malnutrition. 

The purpose behind why I’m writing this commentary isn’t to convince anyone to suddenly go out and fall in love with everything related to GMO.  In fact, it’s not really even about GMO’s at all.  The reason I wrote this is to prove a point that if we all stop instantly buying into whatever the popular hype of the day is and simply start asking questions about everything around us we’ll quickly find out that the hype we’re hearing is more often than not just an exploitation of our mental laziness.  What we should be doing anytime someone is trying to lead us down a specific path either through a hype of fear (i.e. global warming) or a utopian hype (i.e. Obamacare) is to automatically begin asking questions and looking for facts, and ALL the facts at that, before we start formulating any conclusions.  After all, when a wolf invites sheep to dinner it’s the foolish ones that fail to ask if they are going as the guests or as the meal.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment