Category Archives: Politics

You know what Politics are

Let’s See if This Gets Any Traction

Using the true premise that a country is better off when its populace is better educated, makes for a specious argument when it comes to “free education.”  Those who argue for free education have neither taken the trouble to look beyond “free” to understand what makes this argument specious, nor would have the ability to do so, nor benefit from a free education if it were given to them.

First, nothing is free.  If one gets an education and does not pay for it himself, he is “free-loading” his or her education.  Someone else, probably you and me, is paying or it.

Second, things that are “free” are less appreciated, meaning they are given less respect and less commitment.  It’s a generalization, but think about it, if you spend time and money on something and lose it, you spend more effort to retrieve it than if it was free anyway, “no big loss.”    One is more likely to burn the midnight oil to make the grade, if there is a cost involved.  When there’s no cost, no big deal, just another way to kill some time.  This is why the argument is specious, in most cases.  There are exceptions.

The people who have not in some way made a sacrifice for an education are more likely not to get a real education; they will just under-perform and end up in the same place in the end, or worse yet, in a government job managing a line you and I have to wait in.

But, there’s more.  If the “free” education is granted to the undeserving or worse, the undisciplined, the quality of the product goes down.  Consequently, with poor results, less funding is available.  The tempting, real, solution is to lower standards, in which case everyone becomes a loser, because the accountability is limited to zero.

The added negative is that the so-called “education” has become an indoctrination with schools, such as the University of Missouri, where freedom of speech, and diversity of thought are inhibited, even banned, from “safe spaces.”  How is this an education?

Universities merely become incubators and fertilized hot beds for the breeding of more intolerant Leftists, will go out and become indoctrinated, not thinking, poorly equipped voters who don’t even know the history of this country.  We’ve seen it time and time again.

No wonder Bernie and his Marxist bears want free education.  It controls the thought and ideology of a dependent, enslaved class that keeps them in power.  The tragedy is that those who are deserving and those who have paid their own way, through currency or scholarships, are limited by and exposed to only the liberal drivel taught on these campuses.  There are limited and few opportunities to hear another opinion.

So, while an educated populace has merit and worth pursuit, “Free” is not an answer, at least not outside of some other qualifying performance and discipline.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Common-Terry, Front Page News, Politics

Carson Ahead of the Curve – To Clarify Our Confusion

ben carson tells it

Carson way head of the curve. To clarify our dilemma:

The inevitable show down that has been brewing for generations is coming to a boil. The American people do NOT have clarity on this issue and what is equally as troublesome is neither do the pundits on Fox.

The Founders Fathers assumed Christianity in some form, but they wrote the Constitution broadly enough to include, rather exclude, religions of any sort from being mandated or excluded from Constitutional consideration in the application of the laws.

On the surface (superficial analysis is part of our problem), it appears that Carson may have erred with his comment excluding from consideration a Muslim as the President. On the other hand, he may have been ahead of the curve.

There is more to consider, which is what Carson, not being a seasoned politician (i.e., professional, PC practicing, liar), was doing.

The key to the analysis lies squarely on the subversion and perversion of language, in this case one word, “religion.”

The erroneous assumption made by Carson’s critics, including all those on “The Five” and other Fox shows, is that Islam is just one of many “religions,” as we know them, and as such, can be subordinated by Muslims in the execution of their duties of public office.

By taking this position one, especially Greg and Dana, have lost the clarity for which they are otherwise known. They have unwittingly become subscribers to the “PC Agenda,” (a widely circulated publication, which does not print any offensive words).

The error is the assumption that Islam would be subject to the concept of “separation of Church and state.” Such a concept is the antithesis of Islam. Islam demands all things are subordinate to the “religion.”

As it turns out, the “religion” is a misnomer for a sociopolitical ideology. Under Islam, there is no room for freedom of thought, speech, or actions. All things must work in perfect submission, compliance, and coordination for the bloody execution of those who step out of line.

Islam, as practiced by a “true believer” cannot allow, and must destroy, any teaching contrary to its teaching.

Christianity also has some strict disciplines, but does not mandate the destruction of others who do not agree. This is the difference between a comprehensive ideology and voluntary religion as understood by the Founding Fathers.

It would be constitutionally consistent to approve of a Muslim as President if he or she could and would treat his “faith” as a subordinate “religion.” But, Islam has no such admonishment as does the Bible which says, “yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”

Carson, operating on the evidence of behavior by both “radical” Islam and complicity of “peaceful” Muslims has assumed that a Muslim cannot adapt or operate under the principles of the US Constitution. (There are a few, however, who are striving toward this goal.)

Is there evidence to support Carson’s assumption?

This will bring up another entire debate, but the answer and evidence is, yes, “Obama.”

Whether a Muslim or not, Obama has arguably set-aside the Constitution to pursue his own agenda based on a personal ideology of his own, whatever that is.

Do we want a person with a questionable ideology making policy from a personal agenda?

It is bad enough that our policies are and have always been subject to any personal agendas, but a perverted ideology that allows for an “end-justifies-the-means” (tenet of Islam) tactic will result in a perverted Administration.
Do we not have this already? You already know the answer.

Unfortunately my arguments only push back the issue one more step.
What happens when the government itself becomes perverse and immoral for whatever reason? Are Christians compelled to “yield to Caesar?”

This then is the very same with which our Forefathers and Church leaders have struggled down through the ages. I direct you attention to a historical figure, Alvin York, and a literary work, “Murder in the Cathedral,” by T.S. Elliot.

No answer supersedes the moral base of the citizenry, hence the confusion, hence Carson’s insightful replay.

3 Comments

Filed under Common-Terry, Front Page News, Politics

The 2016 Presidential Debates #2. Part 1, The Venue

The 2016 GOP Presidential Debates
The Second debate on CNN

The discussion on the debate can be broken in two parts: The Venue and the Participants.

This post discusses The Venue.

Summary: Too long, too many, too off-point.

A three-hour debate by two participants is a strain on the bladder, but between eleven simply makes no sense and conveys less than no information. What can you learn about a candidate when he has less than nine minutes to respond to challenges on at least four or five issues? Candidates were not cut-off midsentence and had to force their time in order to finish a thought. There was no buzzer.

I suspect that someone must have had a “Catheters-R-Us” concession out in the lobby of the Reagan Library. If not, they missed an opportunity.

Then, for the first hour, there was little to no air conditioning.

Furthermore, what can you learn about the legitimate issues when the majority of the questions and challenges to the candidate are more related to what Donald Trump said, or didn’t say about one’s face, hair, or butt size. CNN attempted to make this whole thing a sensation over substance, but the candidates, for the most part did not fall for it.

CNN’s objective was obvious to anyone except other members of the media, trash the GOP by throwing them in a ring together for a fight to the death. The moderator pitted one against the other for a kind of Roman Circus. The only things missing were the starved lions.

What about the moderators? Yes, “moderators,” that’s plural. Yes, there were supposed to be three, but Hugh Hewitt, asked only four questions, as I recollect. Where was Dana Bash, on a coffee break? Jake Trapper seemed to be obsessed with the time keeping that he didn’t notice the candidates were speaking at will, whoever “Will” is.

It would have been so much better to have a weeklong series of debates, with each aired at two different times of the day and with three or four candidates at a time. There should be some kind of rating system and at the end of the week; there is a debate among the finalists. The issues to be addressed should be clearly stated at the beginning of, or before each session. This idea that the POTUS has to respond to issues extemporaneously has always been an ill-conceived idea. It’s not reality. This would take the sensation and name calling out of the equation and provide a better platform for substantive material. Amen.

Leave a comment

Filed under Front Page News, Politics

The 2016 GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES #2

The 2016 GOP Presidential Debates

The Second debate on CNN

The discussion on the debate can be broken in two parts: The Venue and the Participants.

This post discusses The Venue.

Summary: Too long, too many, too off-point.

A three-hour debate by two participants is a strain on the bladder, but between eleven simply makes no sense and conveys less than no information. What can you learn about a candidate when he has less than nine minutes to respond to challenges on at least four or five issues? Candidates were not cut-off mid sentence and had to force their time in order to finish a thought. There was no buzzer.

I suspect that someone must have had a “Catheters-R-Us” concession out in the lobby of the Reagan Library. If not, they missed an opportunity.

Then, for the first hour, there was little to no air conditioning.

Furthermore, what can you learn about the legitimate issues when the majority of the questions and challenges to the candidate are more related to what Donald Trump said, or didn’t say about one’s face, hair, or butt size. CNN attempted to make this whole thing a sensation over substance, but the candidates, for the most part did not fall for it.

CNN’s objective was obvious to anyone except other members of the media, trash the GOP by throwing them in a ring together for a fight to the death. The moderator pitted one against the other for a kind of Roman Circus. The only things missing were the starved lions.

What about the moderators? Yes, “moderators,” that’s plural. Yes, there were supposed to be three, but Hugh Hewitt, asked only four questions, as I recollect. Where was Dana Bash, on a coffee break? Jake Trapper seemed to be obsessed with the time keeping that he didn’t notice the candidates were speaking at will, whoever “Will” is.

It would have been so much better to have a weeklong series of debates, with each aired at two different times of the day and with three or four candidates at a time. There should be some kind of rating system and at the end of the week; there is a debate among the finalists. The issues to be addressed should be clearly stated at the beginning of, or before each session. This idea that the POTUS has to respond to issues extemporaneously has always been an ill-conceived idea. It’s not reality. This would take the sensation and name calling out of the equation and provide a better platform for substantive material. Amen.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Common-Terry, Front Page News, Politics

What’s Fair?

It is a reasonable approach to ask that everyone be treated equal under the law, is it not?  This is what Conservatives in the House are asking  for.  The President has arbitrarily and selectively already given exemptions to big business, some unions, and Congress.  Why not us?

Every argument presented by Democrats failed in many ways but most obviously it failed the fairness test.

Peter DeFazio representing the 4th District of Oregon seems to need a lesson in the US Constitution and some help in adding up the numbers, not to mention, but I am mentioning it, help with logic and fairness.

His points, more succinctly stated are, “Fund ACA because it’s already a law.”

Then, perhaps in anticipation of an obvious objection to his comment, he sites Gerrymandering as the illegitimate reason for Republicans being elected.  If that was the case, how did they get in office in the first place to practice Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering, like many other provisions and strategies in politics are there because BOTH political parties have decided that it is beneficial. It is as often used, if not more often used, by Democrats as by Republicans.  This argument is a Red Herring.

More relevant however is the claim that the ACA is already a law.

The ACA barely passed with not one Republican voting for it and 34 Democrats voting against it.  Later 22 Democrats voted to delay it.

As soon as the ACA passed the 2012 elections that followed removed many of those who voted for it.  They were replaced by Representatives who could be counted on to not fund it.

These Representatives are doing the job they were elected to do, which as to mitigate the damages to be done by the ACA and to not fund it.  In other words, they are representing their constituency.

Furthermore, it is by design of the Constitution that the House that holds the purse strings.

Following the Constitutional requirements at this time has left Harry Reid and the Executive Branch with a shut-down as the only cards to play.

Clearly, the House is not in favor of a shut-down in spite of not having a budget.  They are passing Continuing Resolutions (CRs) to fund the functions being shut-down and in danger of shut-down by this Administration.  However, these CRs are not getting approved by the Senate or sanctioned by the President.  The Administration, in keeping with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, continues to make shut-downs and life as uncomfortable as possible for anyone whom the President sees fit.  He closes open air, no cost, low cost parks, but instead he funds his favorite golf course which is a high maintenance facility.

Interestingly, the House’s passing of single issue CRs to fund specific operations and functions is a kind of de facto “line-item-veto” legislation.

It has long been argued that “line-item-veto” is needed in order to remove “pork barrel” and excessive special interest spending.  Obviously, and consequently, “line-item-veto” has not gotten much traction with politicians.  It reduces opportunity for their personal gain.

The House Conservatives, perhaps inadvertently, are on an equitable course of funding as needed, without padding the budget.

Now, what about fairness?  Why would DeFazio think he is above the American people and not be subject to ACA?

This law is directly and clearly in opposition to the principles set forth by the Federalist Papers 57(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._57 .

Additionally, any Congressman who is voting to exempt himself from laws, to which we must submit, is obviously in office to benefit himself.  He is not representing his constituency.  Such a person should be recalled immediately.

Unfortunately, there is no 28th Amendment, but there should be and we should be calling for it with our Congressmen.

2 Comments

Filed under Common-Terry, Front Page News, Politics

It May Already Be Too Late

This article is inspired by the article from The Blaze that “Freedom of Religion is a Western Idea.”  See the link below.

We are being attacked from the Left by Marxists and from the right by intolerant Islam, although to call Islam as being “on the Right” is something of a perversion.

There are people in this country who have been blessed by this American experiment, but they don’t seem to realize that the liberties and prosperity they enjoy are possible because of the unappreciated and under appreciated Constitution they would change because they see it as a dynamic living document.
 
This kind of thinking will only result in a loss of the very values that have given them the kind of freedoms never before enjoyed by any civilizations on earth.  And, this kind of thinking is what the totalitarians are counting on to put them in power.
 
If the eroding of the Constitution is continued it will be impossible for the people to rise up and regain their liberty.  Something needs to be done NOW to change this trend.  The technology of our time will give the totalitarian state complete control over every aspect of life.
 
My fear is that it is already too late.  If the government wanted to do it, they could completely shut-down our freedoms today and they could do it under the auspices of unconstitutional laws already in existence in the Patriot Act and the Affordable Health Care Act.
 
The big question today is what is the loyalty of those who are charged with the protection of the people and the country, those who are armed?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/beck-highlights-total-massacre-that-the-media-completely-ignored-and-how-it-relates-to-egypt-syria/

Leave a comment

Filed under Front Page News, New Cat, Politics, Reviews

Movie Review: 2016 Obama’s America

This, the second attempt to write my review of 2016 Obama’s America, (2016).  It gets too long, even for me.  Let’s try again.

Love him or hate him, you need to know him.  There is no risk to reading this (or seeing 2016), but there is a risk to not reading it.

I’m still reflecting and am up against a wall.  No doubt, but understandably, my comments will be interpreted as biased, in spite of my conscious effort toward objectivity.

A “MUST SEE” falls short of an accurate characterization, as well as level of recommendation, for 2016.  I fear this recommendation will get lost in the chatter of so many earlier admonishment.  But here is the dilemma, the mainstream media, and even many of the movie ads sections of the newspaper, are not giving this movie the press it deserves.  So, it is up to me, and those like me, as is so often the unwelcome case.

If 2016 was a Left-Wing ideology presentation, viewing it would be mandated.  This movie should be mandated as a civic responsibility.  If you love him or hate him, you need to know him.

Remarkably, and somewhat off-point, it is out grossing the big productions in terms of “per screen” revenues.  Meaning, a butt-load of people are viewing this movie and the statistics on this are incredible.

For brevity’s sake, let me try a bullet point method:

  • Premise: If one (or many)is going to achieve or at least strive for that “Reasonable Society,” it is expeditious to understand the other side’s perspective.  This is not a football game where forceful pounding of an opinion on the other side gains ground.  2016 is not an attack on Obama, it is a definition of how and/or why he is motivated and his agenda.
  • Obama’s practices, policies and actions don’t seem to fit any rational behavior that we understand.  The Right, the Left, and the left-out, Democrats, Republicans and Independents have been scratching their heads.  His actions are not acknowledged by liberals and are given a pass by the Press, but for those who are monitoring life in the Loop, Obama remains an enigma.  Could this be why Hillary said that Obama’s agenda is too socialistic?
  • Consequently, to try to understand what motivates Obama, D’Souza (professor and author of 2016) has taken on the mystery and task of finding an answer.
  • D’Souza’s background mirrors Obama’s background in many ways giving him a unique platform and insight into Obama’s perception of the world and the US.  He gets it when it comes to Anti-colonialism.
  • D’Souza does not question Obama’s citizenship and in fact, he affirms his birth in Hawaii.
  • We, in the US, have little appreciation or even knowledge of Anti-colonialism.  I venture to say that many reading this are going to Google Search right now to find out what it is.  D’Souza and Obama, both grew up under the rule of Colonialist ideology.  In 2016 the case for Anti-colonialism is made in the voice of Obama’s uncle, though it is rejected by D’Souza and embraced by Obama.
  • Anti-colonialism has its points, but they are rather shallow, naïve and, most significantly, without introspect or accepting of one’s own personal responsibility.  There is another side, a positive side, to Colonialism that is rarely conceded.  This realization is better recognized in India than in Kenya, which could explain Obama’s perspective.  I have some other thoughts, but not worthy for this piece.
  • 2016 also presents counter points on itself in the form of comments and criticisms from the Press and some Democrats.  Especially revealing are the comments from Diane Rehm and Joe Biden.  For once, I understand what Biden is trying to say, but he and Rehm have such extreme left hinged imaginations they are not able embrace objectivity.
  • D’Souza makes the case that the Anti-colonialism agenda is Obama’s priority above all other aspects of life.  I would say above life itself.  An Anti-colonial agenda is really the only model that adequately and convincingly explains Obama’s decisions, actions and attitudes.
  • 2016 credits Obama as a quick-study and insightful.  He is not an idiot as he sometimes appears.  He is intelligent and quite shrewd.
  • The fear (at least mine) is that Obama, by following his agenda with blinders on, is sacrificing the American ideal (dream) and way of life, while replacing it with dreams from his father.  In fact, that is part of his agenda.  Let’s make all equal; if we can’t raise them, we lower ourselves.  It is not the American concept of E pluribus Unum, it is the concept of all equal.  All equal leaves out personal responsibility and aspirations for achieving.
  • This is not a part of 2016; it is my Second fear.  Obama’s prioritization of Anti-colonialism has led him to breach and violate numerous Constitutional provisions.  I hope you are not in denial about this fact.  With this kind of record, Obama is no longer an enigma, nor are we in the dark about how far he will go to advance his agenda.  If he chooses to do so, provisions in the Patriot Act and provisions recently added by this administration, will allow Obama to declare a form of national Martial Law.  His administration will be able to deny citizens their citizenship and the due process of law that goes with it.  What does this mean?  Can you say, FEMA camp?

7 Comments

Filed under Politics, Uncategorized

WHO SAID?

I disagree!!!  The multi-party concept (more than two) was debunked long ago.  More than two parties fragments the people into ineffective, overly specialized minorities.

Anything more than a two-party system will produce a takeover by a well-organized totalitarian groups.  Please read and understand what happened in 1921 Germany.  It is the same thing all over again.  “Those who do not know (this) history, are doomed to repeat it,” WHO SAID IT?

Please, read this except.

During 1931 and into 1932, Germany’s political crisis deepened. In March 1932 Hitler ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1% in the first round and 36.8% in the second against Hindenburg’s 49 and 53%. By now the SA had 400,000 members, and its running street battles with the SPD and KPD paramilitaries (who also fought each other) reduced some German cities to combat zones. Paradoxically, although the Nazis were among the main instigators of this disorder, part of Hitler’s appeal to a frightened and demoralised middle class was his promise to restore law and order. Overt antisemitism was played down in official Nazi rhetoric, but was never far from the surface. Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means), to restore German greatness and overturn the Treaty of Versailles, and to save Germany from communism.

On 20 July 1932, the Prussian government was ousted by a coup—the Preussenschlag, and a few days later at the July 1932 Reichstag election the Nazis made another leap forward, polling 37.4% and becoming the largest party in the Reichstag by a wide margin. Furthermore, the Nazis and the KPD between them won 52% of the vote and a majority of seats. Since both parties opposed the established political system, and neither would join or support any ministry, this made the formation of a majority government impossible. The result was weak ministries governing by decree. Under Comintern directives, the KPD maintained its policy of treating the SPD as the main enemy, calling them “social fascists“, thereby splintering opposition to the Nazis.[58] Later, both the SPD and the KPD accused each other of having facilitated Hitler’s rise to power by their unwillingness to compromise.

There is a solution, get off your backsides and get involved in transforming the party that is already most closely aligned with your own ideology.  I don’t care if it is Right or Left.  Then, work, work, work, to decentralized government.  We cannot have our freedoms taken or be oppressed by a totalitarian state like the one that existed in Germany if we do not allow there to be an overly empowered central government.

Remember, the bigger the government, the smaller the people. This is not just some ideological platitude or mere rhetoric.

Keep governance local, we don’t need snow plows in Miami or surfboards in Denver.  The locals know what is best for the locals.

At this very point in time the Federal (Central) Government is transitioning into an all-powerful authority, while State’s rights are diminishing.  Your rights are next.   We need to understand the issues and pull our collective heads out of that comfortable place where the sun don’t shine.

3 Comments

Filed under Common-Terry, Politics

Heard on the Street

Sorry that I had to borrow this old title from the Wall Street Journal, but it is more of a reality than it is a heading for a routine column.

I heard that Obama saved (nationalized) GM last year.  Today, GM’s debt has increased by 24 billion dollars.  Aren’t we glad that as taxpayers we now own this company.  We are each now on the hook for another $83,333 dollars.  You can just deduct this from your next net worth calculation.

But, the good news is that we have created jobs because the government is funding GM’s new manufacturing facilities being constructed in China.  Oh, you didn’t know.  It’s okay, they are Chinese jobs, because we don’t need no stinking jobs here in America.  We got aid.

2 Comments

Filed under Common-Terry, Politics

“It” Does Not Matter

I am tempted to over simplify things with, “It does not matter who wins the election.”  Of course this has a certain amount of shock value.  How could anyone on either side say such a thing?  Maybe it may be said because it is true, but in it present form it makes and assumption and consequently lacks clarity and is controversial if not confrontational.

Here is the clarification.  It is kind of like Clinton said, to paraphrase, “It depends upon what your definition of ‘it’ is.”  Democrats never cease to provide us with a new and amusing way of distorting reality.  In this case, I mean that “it” means something in terms of eternal issues and the matters of our character and soul.

Certainly, how we will live our lives and what opportunities we will have or have not, will depend on who wins the election.  Although my personal persuasion is that the country is head for a different kind of big trouble if Obama is elected than the kind of big trouble it is headed for if Romney is elected.  Oh, don’t misunderstand.  I think Romney will be better for the country as a whole and on the long-term than Obama.  This is really quite clear, but the pit is so deep now that it is not going to take years to dig out; it is going to take generations.

This brings me back on point.  If one has any concept of a Superior Being he surely must recognize that this Being has a purpose for human existence.  I am not sure we completely understand what that purpose is, but certainly, this Being is not just whimsical, or capricious.  Although, it is obvious the Being has a sense of humor.  The Being, by definition of what it means to be God, must have a purpose and by definition, must be in control in some ultimate way.

Let’s also make the premise that, since we exist, we are part of that purpose and that he is using our time in this physical dimension to conform us into what ever it is that he wants us to be.  Admittedly, that premise requires some assumptions, but if we are ever going to get to the end of this article we must make some assumptions for expediency.

My point is that we are here and that no matter what happens, the things that do happen are all meant to bring us to a pre-calculated destination in terms of our character, emotions and intellect.

We know from the evidence left by the Being, that we are created in his image.  That does not mean we look like him.   He does not have arms or legs, but he is not handicapped.  He is a Spirit.

We are like him in three ways, one He and we have intellect.  We can reason.  He and we have emotions, we can feel sadness and joy and maybe regret.  But, all these are balanced by the third element, character.

God gives us our intellect to use to control our emotions and our character to respond and create in a way that is consistent with His order.

From my perspective, I see the next election as a turning point in history by which man will be purified one way or another.  He will either be purified by revelation and a change in consciousness (there is a lot of talk about “consciousness” these days) or he will be purified by tribulation.

“Consciousness,” as it is being used, is really nothing more than change, or turning from one awareness to another.  Many think this is a new understanding by mankind.  But it is not new, it used to be called “repentance.”

If by tribulation, it may very well be the Great Tribulation.  While not all the pieces are in place they are certainly on the table and could come together quickly.

From my perspective one thing is certain, we will get the government, leadership and destiny we deserve.

Should I close with, “Good luck,” or “Bring it on?”

4 Comments

Filed under Common-Terry, Front Page News, Politics, Things of the Soul