The Great White North has weathered the Great Recession very well.
Not engaging in the same high-risk real estate ventures that plagued local and large banks with toxic debt, Canada's fiscal infrastructure has rebounded from the economic malaise that is still slowing the ever ponderous recovery around the world.
Perhaps the Canadian model would be an excellent venue for Hermosa Beach City's cash reserves. A stable depository in a reputable country enjoying adequate economic growth is exactly what local governments in crisis need.
Friday, October 28, 2011
"Che Chic" -- What are they thinking?
People who revere Ernesto "Che" Guevara have fallen into the triumphant parade of ideology over experience.
Everyone wants to believe in a knight in shining armor, one who typifies all the greatness that man thinks he can create of himself.
People want to be powerful; minorities want to feel that they can take down an enemy, as many have brought up in liberal-elitist public institutions which promote a Marxist world of class-struggle, inequality, and inevitable revolution.
"Che" inspired many, even to the photograph taken by Alberto Kordas, who depicted him as a modern-day secular Christ-figure who would redeem mankind from the oppression of the bourgeoisie.
"Che" was an anti-Christ, a man who would spill any man's blood (but his own) to stay in power, a lackey of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who disposed of the Argentinian failed medical student as soon as he was no longer useful.
Yet the belief persists, the myth never dies, because he represented a man who pursued everything for to make the world what it "should be." The determination to create an equalized society is so entrenched in the minds of liberals, that they happily ignore the grim, wicked reality that Ernesto was a blood-thirsty coward who despised youth, bullied dissidents into false confessions and execution, and turned a once-thriving economy in a failed state, the epitome of Communism as forever failure.
When it comes to "Che Chic," informed individuals will certainly ask, "What are they thinking?" They are trusting to a blind ideology, one that envisions a world of complete access and equality at the hand and behest of mankind, the pursuit of Nowhere-Utopia, of Paradise Lost, which is the only paradise that man can seek on his own.
Everyone wants to believe in a knight in shining armor, one who typifies all the greatness that man thinks he can create of himself.
People want to be powerful; minorities want to feel that they can take down an enemy, as many have brought up in liberal-elitist public institutions which promote a Marxist world of class-struggle, inequality, and inevitable revolution.
"Che" inspired many, even to the photograph taken by Alberto Kordas, who depicted him as a modern-day secular Christ-figure who would redeem mankind from the oppression of the bourgeoisie.
"Che" was an anti-Christ, a man who would spill any man's blood (but his own) to stay in power, a lackey of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who disposed of the Argentinian failed medical student as soon as he was no longer useful.
Yet the belief persists, the myth never dies, because he represented a man who pursued everything for to make the world what it "should be." The determination to create an equalized society is so entrenched in the minds of liberals, that they happily ignore the grim, wicked reality that Ernesto was a blood-thirsty coward who despised youth, bullied dissidents into false confessions and execution, and turned a once-thriving economy in a failed state, the epitome of Communism as forever failure.
When it comes to "Che Chic," informed individuals will certainly ask, "What are they thinking?" They are trusting to a blind ideology, one that envisions a world of complete access and equality at the hand and behest of mankind, the pursuit of Nowhere-Utopia, of Paradise Lost, which is the only paradise that man can seek on his own.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Governor Brown's Public Pension Proposals
"Provisions of Gov. Brown's pensions overhaul plan" (From the Daily Breeze - 10/28/2011)
Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, is unveiling his proposal to overhaul California's public employee pensions Thursday. Here are highlights of the plan, according to a draft report obtained by The Associated Press:
Require all new and current employees to contribute at least 50 percent of their retirement costs, shifting the burden from public employers, some of whom currently make the entire contribution. This portion of the proposal would be phased in. Employers and employees would be barred from suspending contributions.
Excellent proposal. Granted, it would be morally more enlightened to wean public employees of a public pension entirely -- would it not be better to receive a higher salary, and let each employee demonstrate the requisite responsibility to save and invest for their own future? The states and the federal government have turned Social Security and entitlements into a subtle piggy bank which they have pilfered year after year, having fewer forced investors to make up the lost with each passing year.
Form a mandatory "hybrid" risk-sharing pension plan for new employees. New plan would include a reduced, guaranteed defined benefit, a defined contribution portion such as a 401(k)-style plan, and Social Security. The goal would be to replace
75 percent of an employee's salary, based on a 30-year career for public safety employees, or 35 years for non-public safety employees.
The dichotomy between public safety and public works employees is unacceptable. Police and fire contribute a great deal more to our communities in terms of safety, but without water operators, fire fighters could not put out fires. With adequate street personnel, police would have to arbitrate more accidents and traffic violations.
Still, phasing in private-sector options, like a 401(k) is a step in the right direction, remarkable especially coming from a center-left executive.
Raise the age state employees are eligible for full retirement benefits from 60 to 67 to align with Social Security. The administration has not calculated a minimum retirement age, which is currently 55. Raise the retirement age beyond the current
50 years for newly hired public safety employees to an age based on their ability to perform the job and maintain public safety.
Yes, raise the retirement age. This is the largest jump offered by a state. From 60 to 67, in those seven years a state fund can accrue more investment to release to retirees, perhaps even persuade the current old guard of employees to divest themselves of the state system voluntarily and invest their pension funds in a private account. Why not create an incentive for current workers to do just that? Why not reward workers further still if they postpone retirement beyond 67?
For new employees, calculate pension benefits based on the highest average annual compensation for three years, rather than the current one-year system. Benefits would be calculated based on regular, recurring pay and would not include special bonuses, unused vacation time or overtime.
An average will certainly decrease the final calculation, a welcome change to the pension-spiking that has led to rampant legal abuse of the entitlement for workers approaching their final years in employment. It's about time that a governor called employees to accounts over factoring in unused sick and vacation time. Once again, it would be better to raise salaries than back-load retirement wages.
Bar all employees from buying service credits known as air time, to boost retirement service credit for time not actually worked.
Let us recognize our state staff for the work that they have done, nothing more.
Add two independent, public members with financial expertise to the board of the California Public Employee Retirement System board. Replace the State Personnel Board representative on that board with the director of the California Department of Finance. Brown also will recommend that other public retirement boards make similar changes.
How about scrapping the entire bureaucracy? Why not permit municipalities a large say in the accrual and disbursement of pension and medical benefits?
Prohibit retroactive pension increases based on earlier retirement or higher benefit levels for all employees.
Require new state employees to work for 15 years to become eligible for any state-funded health care premiums and 25 years to qualify for the maximum state contribution to those premiums. State-provided retiree health care premium coverage would end at Medicare eligibility age, when the state would fund only Medicare premium coverage and limited "wrap-around" health care benefits.
Governor Brown has demonstrated considerable political courage drawing up significant pension reform for the tarnished state of California, as the report indicates that public unions support the Democratic majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, strong interests not interested in giving in to fiscal solvency for the sake of the state which they serve.
Let us hope that Governor Brown can hone the necessary skills to reach not just across but within the aisle he stands it to curry favor with stalwart politicians who are looking out for the next election, not the next generation of Californians.
Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, is unveiling his proposal to overhaul California's public employee pensions Thursday. Here are highlights of the plan, according to a draft report obtained by The Associated Press:
Require all new and current employees to contribute at least 50 percent of their retirement costs, shifting the burden from public employers, some of whom currently make the entire contribution. This portion of the proposal would be phased in. Employers and employees would be barred from suspending contributions.
Excellent proposal. Granted, it would be morally more enlightened to wean public employees of a public pension entirely -- would it not be better to receive a higher salary, and let each employee demonstrate the requisite responsibility to save and invest for their own future? The states and the federal government have turned Social Security and entitlements into a subtle piggy bank which they have pilfered year after year, having fewer forced investors to make up the lost with each passing year.
Form a mandatory "hybrid" risk-sharing pension plan for new employees. New plan would include a reduced, guaranteed defined benefit, a defined contribution portion such as a 401(k)-style plan, and Social Security. The goal would be to replace
75 percent of an employee's salary, based on a 30-year career for public safety employees, or 35 years for non-public safety employees.
The dichotomy between public safety and public works employees is unacceptable. Police and fire contribute a great deal more to our communities in terms of safety, but without water operators, fire fighters could not put out fires. With adequate street personnel, police would have to arbitrate more accidents and traffic violations.
Still, phasing in private-sector options, like a 401(k) is a step in the right direction, remarkable especially coming from a center-left executive.
Raise the age state employees are eligible for full retirement benefits from 60 to 67 to align with Social Security. The administration has not calculated a minimum retirement age, which is currently 55. Raise the retirement age beyond the current
50 years for newly hired public safety employees to an age based on their ability to perform the job and maintain public safety.
Yes, raise the retirement age. This is the largest jump offered by a state. From 60 to 67, in those seven years a state fund can accrue more investment to release to retirees, perhaps even persuade the current old guard of employees to divest themselves of the state system voluntarily and invest their pension funds in a private account. Why not create an incentive for current workers to do just that? Why not reward workers further still if they postpone retirement beyond 67?
For new employees, calculate pension benefits based on the highest average annual compensation for three years, rather than the current one-year system. Benefits would be calculated based on regular, recurring pay and would not include special bonuses, unused vacation time or overtime.
An average will certainly decrease the final calculation, a welcome change to the pension-spiking that has led to rampant legal abuse of the entitlement for workers approaching their final years in employment. It's about time that a governor called employees to accounts over factoring in unused sick and vacation time. Once again, it would be better to raise salaries than back-load retirement wages.
Bar all employees from buying service credits known as air time, to boost retirement service credit for time not actually worked.
Let us recognize our state staff for the work that they have done, nothing more.
Add two independent, public members with financial expertise to the board of the California Public Employee Retirement System board. Replace the State Personnel Board representative on that board with the director of the California Department of Finance. Brown also will recommend that other public retirement boards make similar changes.
How about scrapping the entire bureaucracy? Why not permit municipalities a large say in the accrual and disbursement of pension and medical benefits?
Prohibit retroactive pension increases based on earlier retirement or higher benefit levels for all employees.
Require new state employees to work for 15 years to become eligible for any state-funded health care premiums and 25 years to qualify for the maximum state contribution to those premiums. State-provided retiree health care premium coverage would end at Medicare eligibility age, when the state would fund only Medicare premium coverage and limited "wrap-around" health care benefits.
Governor Brown has demonstrated considerable political courage drawing up significant pension reform for the tarnished state of California, as the report indicates that public unions support the Democratic majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, strong interests not interested in giving in to fiscal solvency for the sake of the state which they serve.
Let us hope that Governor Brown can hone the necessary skills to reach not just across but within the aisle he stands it to curry favor with stalwart politicians who are looking out for the next election, not the next generation of Californians.
New York Metro Area Has Highest Inequality in Country
New York City, one of the longest standing bastions of liberalism in the United States, also contains the greatest disparity in wealth and income in the nation, according to a census report in the New York Times.
Of course, the sample is compromised in part because reports are harder to collect in more rural regions.
Yet what does income disparity really tell us? How does one define wealth? Like many reports on income differentials, the New York Times study fails to calculate the number or even the percentage of individuals who move from one income bracket to the next.
Rather than spinning such specious evidence to stir up more heated and halting class warfare, individuals in the United States must recognize that wealth fluctuates, people's standing as rich, middle class, and even poor or working class depends on a number of features, not just the average amount of annual income.
Besides, New York City, one of the most regulated and statist cities in the country, must evaluate the lasting legacy of government encroachment in the private sector and the explosion of public sector employment, including exorbitant pensions and benefits for state workers, all of which contribute to a strained economy pressed into sluggish growth and rising unemployment across the state.
Of course, the sample is compromised in part because reports are harder to collect in more rural regions.
Yet what does income disparity really tell us? How does one define wealth? Like many reports on income differentials, the New York Times study fails to calculate the number or even the percentage of individuals who move from one income bracket to the next.
Rather than spinning such specious evidence to stir up more heated and halting class warfare, individuals in the United States must recognize that wealth fluctuates, people's standing as rich, middle class, and even poor or working class depends on a number of features, not just the average amount of annual income.
Besides, New York City, one of the most regulated and statist cities in the country, must evaluate the lasting legacy of government encroachment in the private sector and the explosion of public sector employment, including exorbitant pensions and benefits for state workers, all of which contribute to a strained economy pressed into sluggish growth and rising unemployment across the state.
Wilma Rudolph vs. Che Guevara
Equality is a nebulous concept for many.
For some, the primary importance of equality is essence. Every human being is born with innate capacities, natural rights ("natural" speaking to "by birth"), and initial opportunity to realize those capacities.
For others, equality is a matter of results, in which human beings not only enjoy great access but similar outcomes. Disparities in skill and wealth, as well
Wilma Rudolph -- three-time gold medal winning runner, promoted the equality of essence in conjunction with individual human potential:
“Never underestimate the power of dreams and the influence of the human spirit. We are all the same in this notion: The potential for greatness lives within each of us.”
She emphasized the extensive power of the individual to near deification, proclaiming:
“I believe in me more than anything in this world.”
In one teacher's classroom, I noticed the first quote for Rudolph's prominently displayed, followed by a picture of Communist Revolutionary Che Guevara.
Here are Guevara's thoughts on the human spirit:
"Youth should learn to think and act as a mass.”
Also, Guevara wanted "to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!"
To Guevara, the individual was nothing, the state was everything, the same ideology the motivated the Nazis and the Soviet Communists, or which Guevara was a fawning adherent.
Regarding his respect for humanity, besides himself, Guevara said the following:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary … These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution!"
"A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!"
Guevara's dream was unending Revolution, and he did not care who got in his way. Either you favored his totalitarian tyranny, or you would be swept away like dust.
About religion, he deified himself, to the point where he would even mow down the Son of man:
"I am not Christ or a philanthropist. I am all the contrary of a Christ … I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place."
This is Rudolph's "I believe in myself" humanism pushed to an obscene extreme.
Unlike Ms. Rudolph, Guevara's convictions excluded recognition of other beliefs, convinced that to realize his own dreams required the demise of opponents:
"What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims."
Liberation, yet at the cost of millions? That is not liberty. In pursuing his own dreams, Che Guevara would utterly destroy them, for there is no liberty without respect for the essential dignity of mankind.
No two icons of human ingenuity could be more incongruous than Wilma Rudolph, an accomplished athlete who achieved through her own merits, and Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who wanted to impose Soviet-Style forced-equality -- read, Communism -- by dismissing millions or cramming them into his warped ideology.
If their worldviews are so incompatible, how does one justify presenting the mottoes of the athlete and the blood-thirsty warlord on the same wall in a classroom?
This schizophrenic adherence is the cause of much frustration among young people, especially minorities, who want to realize who they are, yet at the same time want to be respected as members of a repressed cohort. One cannot be both free and slave, not can one pursue one's dreams while compromising the pursuit of others'.
For some, the primary importance of equality is essence. Every human being is born with innate capacities, natural rights ("natural" speaking to "by birth"), and initial opportunity to realize those capacities.
For others, equality is a matter of results, in which human beings not only enjoy great access but similar outcomes. Disparities in skill and wealth, as well
Wilma Rudolph -- three-time gold medal winning runner, promoted the equality of essence in conjunction with individual human potential:
“Never underestimate the power of dreams and the influence of the human spirit. We are all the same in this notion: The potential for greatness lives within each of us.”
She emphasized the extensive power of the individual to near deification, proclaiming:
“I believe in me more than anything in this world.”
In one teacher's classroom, I noticed the first quote for Rudolph's prominently displayed, followed by a picture of Communist Revolutionary Che Guevara.
Here are Guevara's thoughts on the human spirit:
"Youth should learn to think and act as a mass.”
Also, Guevara wanted "to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!"
To Guevara, the individual was nothing, the state was everything, the same ideology the motivated the Nazis and the Soviet Communists, or which Guevara was a fawning adherent.
Regarding his respect for humanity, besides himself, Guevara said the following:
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary … These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution!"
"A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!"
Guevara's dream was unending Revolution, and he did not care who got in his way. Either you favored his totalitarian tyranny, or you would be swept away like dust.
About religion, he deified himself, to the point where he would even mow down the Son of man:
"I am not Christ or a philanthropist. I am all the contrary of a Christ … I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don’t get nailed to a cross or any other place."
This is Rudolph's "I believe in myself" humanism pushed to an obscene extreme.
Unlike Ms. Rudolph, Guevara's convictions excluded recognition of other beliefs, convinced that to realize his own dreams required the demise of opponents:
"What we affirm is that we must proceed along the path of liberation even if this costs millions of atomic victims."
Liberation, yet at the cost of millions? That is not liberty. In pursuing his own dreams, Che Guevara would utterly destroy them, for there is no liberty without respect for the essential dignity of mankind.
No two icons of human ingenuity could be more incongruous than Wilma Rudolph, an accomplished athlete who achieved through her own merits, and Ernesto "Che" Guevara, who wanted to impose Soviet-Style forced-equality -- read, Communism -- by dismissing millions or cramming them into his warped ideology.
If their worldviews are so incompatible, how does one justify presenting the mottoes of the athlete and the blood-thirsty warlord on the same wall in a classroom?
This schizophrenic adherence is the cause of much frustration among young people, especially minorities, who want to realize who they are, yet at the same time want to be respected as members of a repressed cohort. One cannot be both free and slave, not can one pursue one's dreams while compromising the pursuit of others'.
Michael Moore: "I can't be bought" -- No One is Buying it
Like many left-wing elitists, "Crockumentary" film maker Michael Moore makes money in the same system which he capitalizes on denigrating.
He is a capitalist exploiter, one who cashes in on the anti-American chic that pervades academia and Hollywood, a wasteland of hyper-equality dedicated to playing up the downtrodden only because they are such.
Rather than balancing out the inherent inequalities in the world, treating the causes of these difference. Freedom is essential to the well-being of mankind, yet freedom can be exploited, rejected, or limited, depending on the powers that be in a nation or
First of all, human nature induces many to believe that every person should profit from the weaknesses of others, yet at the same time every one of us desires as much as possible to be dependent on others. At first, no one inherently desires freedom, at least initially. Rather than allow the limitations of mankind to persist, traditional mores permit youth to grow and incorporate values which enhance their freedom without undoing the needs of others.
Michael Moore and other academic rationalists argue that the traditions of our ancestors, which limited our behavior without initial explanation, are outdated, must be changed in order to benefit those who struggle, who seem worse off. The victimization mentality is popular, and easily persuasive. Yet modern man's attempt to modernize certain conditions creates a veritable hell on earth.
Contrary to the limited vision of elite anarchists like Michael Moore, capitalism has done far more to lift man out of poverty that any other economic system, as long as free markets are left to run their course free of government intervention and private manipulation for public gain. The faux documentary filmmaker lives off of demonizing free markets, yet relies on the free market mechanisms of persuasion, impact, and profit to make his millions, which in turn he invests to stir up class strife and manic hatred to elicit interest in a growing crusade.
This blatant hypocrisy is laughable, even to his hollow claim that he "can't be bought." He has sold out to a left-wing agenda, and he argues that film production companies support his movies because -- true to liberal-elitism -- they believe that the American people are so stupid, that they have been dumbed done to accept the current economic and political systems as true and unchanging.
In reality, the American public are more savvy than apparent to most intellectuals, so bogged down in their myopic vision of reality that they are absolute "true- believer" convinced that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong. Despite the rampant fabrications, distortions, and omissions in his film making, Moore cannot accept that more people are seeing through his fatuous anti-American, anti-capitalist propaganda. The masses are not deceived nor amused, and the individuals who watch Moore's film-flam flamboyant drivel are buying neither his arguments nor his assertion that he is not rich, not a member of the much-maligned 1%, and not interested but the best interests of his viewers.
He is a capitalist exploiter, one who cashes in on the anti-American chic that pervades academia and Hollywood, a wasteland of hyper-equality dedicated to playing up the downtrodden only because they are such.
Rather than balancing out the inherent inequalities in the world, treating the causes of these difference. Freedom is essential to the well-being of mankind, yet freedom can be exploited, rejected, or limited, depending on the powers that be in a nation or
First of all, human nature induces many to believe that every person should profit from the weaknesses of others, yet at the same time every one of us desires as much as possible to be dependent on others. At first, no one inherently desires freedom, at least initially. Rather than allow the limitations of mankind to persist, traditional mores permit youth to grow and incorporate values which enhance their freedom without undoing the needs of others.
Michael Moore and other academic rationalists argue that the traditions of our ancestors, which limited our behavior without initial explanation, are outdated, must be changed in order to benefit those who struggle, who seem worse off. The victimization mentality is popular, and easily persuasive. Yet modern man's attempt to modernize certain conditions creates a veritable hell on earth.
Contrary to the limited vision of elite anarchists like Michael Moore, capitalism has done far more to lift man out of poverty that any other economic system, as long as free markets are left to run their course free of government intervention and private manipulation for public gain. The faux documentary filmmaker lives off of demonizing free markets, yet relies on the free market mechanisms of persuasion, impact, and profit to make his millions, which in turn he invests to stir up class strife and manic hatred to elicit interest in a growing crusade.
This blatant hypocrisy is laughable, even to his hollow claim that he "can't be bought." He has sold out to a left-wing agenda, and he argues that film production companies support his movies because -- true to liberal-elitism -- they believe that the American people are so stupid, that they have been dumbed done to accept the current economic and political systems as true and unchanging.
In reality, the American public are more savvy than apparent to most intellectuals, so bogged down in their myopic vision of reality that they are absolute "true- believer" convinced that they are right, and that everyone else is wrong. Despite the rampant fabrications, distortions, and omissions in his film making, Moore cannot accept that more people are seeing through his fatuous anti-American, anti-capitalist propaganda. The masses are not deceived nor amused, and the individuals who watch Moore's film-flam flamboyant drivel are buying neither his arguments nor his assertion that he is not rich, not a member of the much-maligned 1%, and not interested but the best interests of his viewers.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
GOP, Hispanic Stars, Identity Politics
Florida US Senator Marco Rubio, and Governors Susana Martinez and Brian Sandoval are commanding quite a bit of attention, not just as Hispanic politicians making their mark in state leadership and the federal government, but as Republicans.
Susana Martinez, a Democrat by tradition, discovered that she was a Republican after an extended outing with friends, with whom she shared many similar political views. She was shocked that they were Republicans, then changed her party status. Later, she ran for district attorney in a heavily Democratic country in New Mexico, then on to the governorship of the same state.
Marco Rubio, son of Cuban immigrants, established his conservative credentials as Florida House speaker, than relative-unknown challenging the GOP establishment, represented by center-right Charlie Crist. With a surge of support from the growing Tea Party Movement, Rubio carried off an upset victory against Crist in the Republican primary, then defeating Crist -- who decided to run as an independent in the general election -- as well as the Democratic candidate. Rubion ran on conservative values, including pension reform, and rose to victory in a state which Columnist George Will dubbed "God's Antechamber" -- i.e., a constituency of retirees living off of Social Security, whom many predicted would be hostile to major entitlement reform.
Brian Sandoval of Nevada has also emerged as a rising star in a state with a growing Hispanic base, one which he did not tap into as much as his Democratic challenger, yet he has captured the attention of other GOP stalwarts across the country.
The Republican party is promoting the ascendancy of these politicians in order to shore up wavering support of the Democrat-leaning Hispanic vote. Despite the rebuttal of the Left that minorities will not vote according to labels, they can be persuaded of the comity between conservative values and the needs of Latino voters.
If nothing else, elected leaders like Governors Martinez and Sandoval can embolden those minority voters who have been unfairly tagged as "traitors to their race" for voting the GOP line. As illegal immigration becomes a more pressing issue for the American people, legal immigrants who followed the rules to become a part of the United States are voicing their frustration and outrage at a nation that is giving a virtual pass to law-breakers who evade the authorities and violate the law to enter this country. As long as Republicans can present their case as strong on human rights yet underscoring the necessity for the rule of law and respect for those who have entered this country legally, they stand a greater chance of ingratiating themselves to an electorate still wary of a party which the Democrats have invidiously tagged "whites-only" and "anti-immigrant."
Susana Martinez, a Democrat by tradition, discovered that she was a Republican after an extended outing with friends, with whom she shared many similar political views. She was shocked that they were Republicans, then changed her party status. Later, she ran for district attorney in a heavily Democratic country in New Mexico, then on to the governorship of the same state.
Marco Rubio, son of Cuban immigrants, established his conservative credentials as Florida House speaker, than relative-unknown challenging the GOP establishment, represented by center-right Charlie Crist. With a surge of support from the growing Tea Party Movement, Rubio carried off an upset victory against Crist in the Republican primary, then defeating Crist -- who decided to run as an independent in the general election -- as well as the Democratic candidate. Rubion ran on conservative values, including pension reform, and rose to victory in a state which Columnist George Will dubbed "God's Antechamber" -- i.e., a constituency of retirees living off of Social Security, whom many predicted would be hostile to major entitlement reform.
Brian Sandoval of Nevada has also emerged as a rising star in a state with a growing Hispanic base, one which he did not tap into as much as his Democratic challenger, yet he has captured the attention of other GOP stalwarts across the country.
The Republican party is promoting the ascendancy of these politicians in order to shore up wavering support of the Democrat-leaning Hispanic vote. Despite the rebuttal of the Left that minorities will not vote according to labels, they can be persuaded of the comity between conservative values and the needs of Latino voters.
If nothing else, elected leaders like Governors Martinez and Sandoval can embolden those minority voters who have been unfairly tagged as "traitors to their race" for voting the GOP line. As illegal immigration becomes a more pressing issue for the American people, legal immigrants who followed the rules to become a part of the United States are voicing their frustration and outrage at a nation that is giving a virtual pass to law-breakers who evade the authorities and violate the law to enter this country. As long as Republicans can present their case as strong on human rights yet underscoring the necessity for the rule of law and respect for those who have entered this country legally, they stand a greater chance of ingratiating themselves to an electorate still wary of a party which the Democrats have invidiously tagged "whites-only" and "anti-immigrant."
Repsonse to "Obama sits tight for GOP 'Survivor'"
For the second time in office, President Obama has paid a visit to "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.
Now trying to shore up support from the 18-49 demographic which swept him to power on the frothy fumes of "hope and change," the Vanity in Chief wants to reinforce the of his modish telegenic aura, now tarnished with the frustrating reality that the Center-Right United States did not invite him to power in order to impose a left-wing mania on the country.
"I'm going to wait until everybody is voted off the island," Obama joked about the GOP nomination process, heating up to deliver a strong challenge to the marred policies of the soon-to-be-one term chief executive. Little does he realize, but Obama is about to be the one cast off.
Why else would he putting in an effort to cull resources from San Francisco?
While promoting his role in bringing down the Libya dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Obama crowed, "We gave him ample opportunity [to loosen his grip on power], and he wouldn't do it." "I think it sends a strong message around the world to dictators that people long to be free, and they need to respect the human rights and universal aspirations of the people."
Now, where have we heard this lofty rhetoric before?
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
"Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”
"The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."
Straight out of the mouth of the previous chief executive, President George W. Bush, President Obama has promoted the same policies without batting an eyelash, yet also without according credit where credit is due for his current successes.
Despite his overweening arrogance to assume that he has any chance of getting reelected next year, he is campaigning on the same foreign policy that got his predecessor, and rival party, into power for four more years. Running as a Republican to secure his Democratic base is one sure means for President Obama to self-destroy his vain ambition to continue his tired and tried legacy of statism, and left-wing lunacy.
Now trying to shore up support from the 18-49 demographic which swept him to power on the frothy fumes of "hope and change," the Vanity in Chief wants to reinforce the of his modish telegenic aura, now tarnished with the frustrating reality that the Center-Right United States did not invite him to power in order to impose a left-wing mania on the country.
"I'm going to wait until everybody is voted off the island," Obama joked about the GOP nomination process, heating up to deliver a strong challenge to the marred policies of the soon-to-be-one term chief executive. Little does he realize, but Obama is about to be the one cast off.
Why else would he putting in an effort to cull resources from San Francisco?
While promoting his role in bringing down the Libya dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Obama crowed, "We gave him ample opportunity [to loosen his grip on power], and he wouldn't do it." "I think it sends a strong message around the world to dictators that people long to be free, and they need to respect the human rights and universal aspirations of the people."
Now, where have we heard this lofty rhetoric before?
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
"Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”
"The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side."
Straight out of the mouth of the previous chief executive, President George W. Bush, President Obama has promoted the same policies without batting an eyelash, yet also without according credit where credit is due for his current successes.
Despite his overweening arrogance to assume that he has any chance of getting reelected next year, he is campaigning on the same foreign policy that got his predecessor, and rival party, into power for four more years. Running as a Republican to secure his Democratic base is one sure means for President Obama to self-destroy his vain ambition to continue his tired and tried legacy of statism, and left-wing lunacy.
Moammar Gadhafi, Final Words, and Final Thoughts
Before his untimely, savage death at the hands of his enraged and liberating people, Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi begged to know:
"Do you not know right from wrong?"
This ubiquitous questions the Libyan dictator posed before being dispatched with a gunshot to the head.
The sheer hypocrisy of this beggarly query would certainly shock many, coming from a monstrous megalomaniac who spoiled his own country's petrol largesse while alienating its potential and stagnating growth. Following his self-aggrandizement to the point of self-parody, Gadhafi rattled the nerves of more stable leaders in the region while instigating terrorist attacks throughout the world, all of which culminated in the explosive tragedy of Pan-Am 187 over Lockerbie, Scotland on November 21, 1988.
Still, Gadhafi's empty plea does not fall on deaf ears, but rather exposes the inescapable weight of a guilty man, one who can never outrun his wickedness. From his depraved indifference to the impoverished plight of his people, to the flimsy attempts to wrest a respectable legacy from African nations degraded in turn by disgraceful dictators, the recently deceased "Dear Leader" lived in the shadow of his plottings, all of which burgeoned to unassailable rage and revolution among his people. They knew enough of right and wrong to take decisive advantage of a regional movement, bursting forth from Tunisia, shaking loose the status quo in Egypt, which then emboldened the isolated backwater of North Africa in between.
Indeed, the Libyan people understood the wrong of laboring beneath the interminable self-adulation of a leader who betrayed the hopes of many four decades ago, yet only now seeing an opportunity to be realized once again.
They knew right from wrong, as he did, though he disregarded its hold on him, just as his own people suspended their ethical moorings to dispatch once and for all the government, the legacy, and the lingering effects of a man who had so corrupted right and wrong to his own sick advantage.
No matter how chaotic, no matter who evil the perpetrator, or unsettling the victim's response, the knowledge of right and wrong is a constant for mankind, once which cannot be swept away by power, revolution, oppression, or opposition.
Though Gadhafi's broken body, the first of many battlegrounds for the feuding Libyan people, is now buried in an unmarked grave, his question, his challenge -- one which he ostensibly resisted and failed to live up to -- will hang over the delicate future of a country which he took by fiat, ran afoul by force, and lost forever in one fierce moment of retribution.
"Do you not know right from wrong?"
This ubiquitous questions the Libyan dictator posed before being dispatched with a gunshot to the head.
The sheer hypocrisy of this beggarly query would certainly shock many, coming from a monstrous megalomaniac who spoiled his own country's petrol largesse while alienating its potential and stagnating growth. Following his self-aggrandizement to the point of self-parody, Gadhafi rattled the nerves of more stable leaders in the region while instigating terrorist attacks throughout the world, all of which culminated in the explosive tragedy of Pan-Am 187 over Lockerbie, Scotland on November 21, 1988.
Still, Gadhafi's empty plea does not fall on deaf ears, but rather exposes the inescapable weight of a guilty man, one who can never outrun his wickedness. From his depraved indifference to the impoverished plight of his people, to the flimsy attempts to wrest a respectable legacy from African nations degraded in turn by disgraceful dictators, the recently deceased "Dear Leader" lived in the shadow of his plottings, all of which burgeoned to unassailable rage and revolution among his people. They knew enough of right and wrong to take decisive advantage of a regional movement, bursting forth from Tunisia, shaking loose the status quo in Egypt, which then emboldened the isolated backwater of North Africa in between.
Indeed, the Libyan people understood the wrong of laboring beneath the interminable self-adulation of a leader who betrayed the hopes of many four decades ago, yet only now seeing an opportunity to be realized once again.
They knew right from wrong, as he did, though he disregarded its hold on him, just as his own people suspended their ethical moorings to dispatch once and for all the government, the legacy, and the lingering effects of a man who had so corrupted right and wrong to his own sick advantage.
No matter how chaotic, no matter who evil the perpetrator, or unsettling the victim's response, the knowledge of right and wrong is a constant for mankind, once which cannot be swept away by power, revolution, oppression, or opposition.
Though Gadhafi's broken body, the first of many battlegrounds for the feuding Libyan people, is now buried in an unmarked grave, his question, his challenge -- one which he ostensibly resisted and failed to live up to -- will hang over the delicate future of a country which he took by fiat, ran afoul by force, and lost forever in one fierce moment of retribution.
Evangelicals, Academics, and Reason
Columnist Dennis Prager has hit on another disturbing trend of the Left, targeting the condescending intelligentsia's assault on people of faith.
Academics, vain with the fatal conceit of mind as means to manage everything, have condemned religious adherents as "anti-intellectual, anti-reason, and anti-scientific."
Intellectuals, especially the vast majority of left-wing adherents, make great claims to how society "should work," promoting equality as the highest value to be achieved and maintained by mankind. This self-limiting world-view flies in the face of empirical evidence, logic, tradition, and real-life events (also history), all of which have undermined the cherished notions of central planning, personal license, and moral relativism.
As Prager argues in his piece, ideology colors the judgments and prescriptions of many academics and scholars, moved not by raw irrational notions, but rather by their extra-rational irrationality. Their beliefs are irrational precisely because they place such a blind faith, a true-believer trust in the human mind to determine and dictate to the world the way that things should be done. Notwithstanding all the evidence that flies in the face of their deeply-held dogmas and doctrines, left-wing acolytes will unflinchingly fight for their fantastic notions of equality, disdaining the precise and supportable suppositions of religion, which disdains same-sex unions (proven by empirical studies to exacerbate physical and psychological dysfunction), theft in the name of charity for the masses (the imperial failure of the Orwellian Welfare State), and power as the only value worth pursuing (From Foucault to forced equality).
Unlike left-wing warriors, religious adherents respect the demonstrable limits of reasons, recognizing the necessary role of faith and tradition in shaping man's current prosperity and future certainties. Not despising the role of the mind, evangelicals respect its capacities, based squarely on the credos handed down by learned peoples who have overcome the obstacles of times and circumstance.
To summarize the true role of the mind in relation to faith, one need look no further than Augustine of Hippo's stern admission:
"Credo ut intelligam" --- I believe that I may understand.
There is no understanding, there is no learning apart from faith, and faith is the precursor to a sound knowledge base for every human being.
Academics, vain with the fatal conceit of mind as means to manage everything, have condemned religious adherents as "anti-intellectual, anti-reason, and anti-scientific."
Intellectuals, especially the vast majority of left-wing adherents, make great claims to how society "should work," promoting equality as the highest value to be achieved and maintained by mankind. This self-limiting world-view flies in the face of empirical evidence, logic, tradition, and real-life events (also history), all of which have undermined the cherished notions of central planning, personal license, and moral relativism.
As Prager argues in his piece, ideology colors the judgments and prescriptions of many academics and scholars, moved not by raw irrational notions, but rather by their extra-rational irrationality. Their beliefs are irrational precisely because they place such a blind faith, a true-believer trust in the human mind to determine and dictate to the world the way that things should be done. Notwithstanding all the evidence that flies in the face of their deeply-held dogmas and doctrines, left-wing acolytes will unflinchingly fight for their fantastic notions of equality, disdaining the precise and supportable suppositions of religion, which disdains same-sex unions (proven by empirical studies to exacerbate physical and psychological dysfunction), theft in the name of charity for the masses (the imperial failure of the Orwellian Welfare State), and power as the only value worth pursuing (From Foucault to forced equality).
Unlike left-wing warriors, religious adherents respect the demonstrable limits of reasons, recognizing the necessary role of faith and tradition in shaping man's current prosperity and future certainties. Not despising the role of the mind, evangelicals respect its capacities, based squarely on the credos handed down by learned peoples who have overcome the obstacles of times and circumstance.
To summarize the true role of the mind in relation to faith, one need look no further than Augustine of Hippo's stern admission:
"Credo ut intelligam" --- I believe that I may understand.
There is no understanding, there is no learning apart from faith, and faith is the precursor to a sound knowledge base for every human being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)