As Seen From the Rational Right

The American Left Wants YOU...to be the victim!!!

I am very proud that America has such an equitable justice system.  It's not perfect but that's not possible anyway.  Innocent until proven guilty, due process, fair day in court...all of that is great.  That is, until the left started victimizing criminals (and terrorists) at every turn.  I've often wondered why liberals are such staunch advocates of criminal behavior.  If someone molests a child, well they had an alcoholic Dad themselves.  If someone is a high seas, hostage seeking pirate...well they had it pretty rough in Africa and shouldn't be tried in U.S. Federal Court.  The best argument is that terrorists only exist as a reaction to U.S. foreign policy.  So through "progression" this country has become soft.  After all, we wouldn't want to implement policies or consequences that deter crimes.  Moral relativism (when it suits them), as long as there is some conditional pretense, then violence (murder) is acceptable.  

It comes as no surprise, obviously, that the Obama administration is carefully deploying their political prosecution game and calling for the release of classified terrorist interrogation procedures and memos.  I understand transparency in Government, and agree with it on a conditional basis.  I understand the Freedom of Information Act, but I don't understand how people who aren't privy to classified intelligence briefings feel suited to question tactics used in defense of national security.  Even now CIA officials are coming on the record to state that this will hamper the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence.  Alan Colmes, on Imus the other day, stated that the CIA implemented torture as part of a "macho culture" and it's use had no real merit in gathering information.  Really?  Everyone else is the expert on international intel gathering except the actual experts, I love it.  It's not like the CIA arbitrarily mustered up Muslim people and tortured them.  They had the intel (that everyone else didn't) that these select people were terrorists of high interest and performed waterboarding and such as the most extreme means of gathering information they deemed (as the experts, not you liberals) crucial to preventing another attack.  Bush didn't do anyone any favors by being so generous in his use of 9/11 and terrorism as a justification, however that doesn't mean that terrorism doesn't exist or isn't a real threat. 

Going further on the issue is this question of morality.  How "immoral" is it really?  Special units of our armed forces undergo training methods similar to waterboarding.  It's not like we are murdering these terrorist murderers.  Detention facilities take special care to give them nutritious food and there is strict guidelines that limits "torture."  There is even a doctor on hand to supervise.  Who else but America takes such good care of their unconventional enemies?  This human rights issue is being used by the left to sell their political witch hunt.

Where's the history on the politics of "torture"?  I mean, didn't  congress sign off on this with the consulting of legal advisors in 2002?  They felt it was a necessary measure back then.  Even outspoken critic, Nancy Pelosi was on board.  She even received a virtual tour of facilities and specific details of interrogation (now torture) procedures by the CIA.  Where was her opposition then?

Now this "unifying administration" wants to basically criminalize the previous administration through selective transparency.  Obama first said that the release of torture memos was for education and to "move forward."  Now, he has all but given Holder the green light to issue subpeonas to the past administration.  Some liberals even want to prosecute down to the low level CIA officials.  What kind of precedant are they going to set when you can criminalize the executive branch if you don't agree with their policy?  Nothing would get done if every successor could question the legal basis for circumstances before him.  It's simply un-American.

This whole battle cry is part of the phoney liberal notion that America, exclusively, is the cause of every problem in the world.  Forget the fact that the CIA deemed these procedures effective.  Obama, feels it's "morally deficient."  We (some of you) elected a President, not an absolute authority on morality.  We aren't tortuing children, these are high level terror masterminds.  Could we say that the inability to exercise complete effectiveness in handling terrorists when we have the resources to is immoral if it results in the death of thousands of Americans?  Liberals, who are usually morally vacant, are all of the sudden the champions of morality.  Obama and the libs, soft on terrorism...tough on America.

CBC Visits Castro to Repair Ties. What's next from our left?

The Congressional Black Caucus sent a team down to Havana to talk with Castro.  Click here for story. 

    So, why are we seeing that democrats are so willing to reach out to every world leader?  I really don’t want to bring back McCarthyism but let’s be honest here, our elected officials seem very accepting of communist principles and now it’s leaders.  Castro isn’t the innocent head of a country that the Bush administration just recently added to some evil-doer list.  For the past 50 plus years, Castro has been a violent and dominating dictator.  He gained power through violent revolution, consolidated all power and property and stripped Cubans of any political voice.  He is a frequent human rights violator (he put homosexuals in concentration camps) and has constantly sided with our enemies (um Soviet Union).  Now the CBC wants to reestablish better relations with Cuba?  Why?  What is this push by our very left administration and congress to reach out to everyone in the world? 

    Officially, the trip by the CBC was to open up dialogue and possibly eliminate travel restrictions for Americans into Cuba but I see this as an initial sign of communist acceptance by our leaders.  “It was almost like listening to an old friend,” said Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il.) who was one of the seven visiting.  It’s as if they are so quick to accept all of our enemies that they either don’t know or just disregard the history of leaders like Castro.  It’s dangerously hasty.  Left Americans everywhere are cheering because Americans will be “liked” more around the world.  Why do we want certain people to like us?  We want communist tyrants to like us?  We want the Taliban to like us?  It is the perfect example of the ignorance of these ‘world citizen’ wanna-bees.  The end game to action like this would be a serious consolidation of power and resources (which starts when you nationalize everything within your own country first).  I would love to see liberals (who aren’t part of the ruling elite after power consolidation) then.  Because they hate America so much (by their continued stay in this country), they welcome any change even if it involves getting in bed with ruthless dictators.  Ask the many Cubans who defected from Cuba how they feel about members within our congress visiting Castro. 

    How does America look now?  Weak.  Weak when we seek approval from communist dictators.  Weak when we have leaders who go overseas and apologize for America.  The left acts like the hundreds of nations around the world are righteous and without any fault and we are to apologize.  Europe was volatile and warring for centuries and this country was never issued an apology from any leader in Europe.  Are we completely ignorant of history?

    More importantly, what is this backlash on capitalism and dancing with communism?  The free market system is in a valley because its peak was reached from greed by the everyday person.  People in this nation spent more than they made for years and when we see the result of that, we want to blame the system.  This backlash on money and the ability to earn it.  We want to cap salaries and limit what people can make.  That is a very dangerous precedent.  Capitalism is not perfect because people are not perfect but without capitalism you have no innovation.  Capitalism, and the opportunity to reward yourself, has brought about every innovation in the modern world.  It’s not a coincidence that our technology and standard of living have increased exponentially with a capitalist super power in the world. 

    It’s not that I disagree with diplomatic relations with other countries that were once enemies.  It’s that I disagree with a blanket olive branch extension to anyone and everyone who wants to grab it and take full advantage of us.  We seem too eager to counter every perceived international faux pas that Bush committed.  It’s time we redefine our values as Americans not as world citizens because we are not.  It sounds dreadful and mean and bit pessimistic but there is no such thing as world peace.  There are billions of people on this Earth each selfish in their own right, and some of them have power.  War and conflict have been a constant in human nature since the beginning of time and with dwindling resources on this Earth and more people, it’s not going away.  As an American I’d rather my leader take the lead and not invite incompetent leaders to share his stage.   

PS - I'm almost a week late on this story, I apologize.  It still may be news to some because the major news outlets under reported it, like many other stories.

 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Receive Bonuses...Will the Administration Give Them a Pass?

Ughh.  I really didn’t want to write a charged political post today on a Friday but then I saw this little gem in the news and thought it would be irresponsible of me not to.  Apparently Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to shell out $210 million in bonuses as a retainer for employees.  I REALLY want to know if Obama and his administration will react with the same outrage that they did over the AIG bonuses (albeit delayed).  They were able to garner public outrage over bonuses to be paid (by way of legally binding contracts) to employees who played no part in the liquidity crisis months ago.  AIG and their bonuses became the administrations fall guy to deflect attention away from their incompetence in handling the economic mess.  Never mind the fact that the bonuses were retainers to keep qualified executives on board to right the ship.  So now the liberal puppets (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are also giving retainer bonuses.  I wonder how the administration will address this…if not deflect it all together. 

 

Here’s a little history for you.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were at the forefront of the recent housing crisis and significantly more responsible for the downturn in our economy than the “big bad” CEOs that the news media focuses on.  They became liberal puppets when they started eating up sub-prime mortgages from lenders as part of the democrats “fair housing” campaigns in the 1990s.  These initiatives encourage lending to people without the income or credit to support such loans.  HUD soon found these practices risky but balked a few years later in 2004 and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were once again ballooning profits through sub-prime lending. 

 

Where were our politicians during this blatant prelude to a market crash?  Well Republicans were trying to pass reform to ban these practices.   And Democrats were busy blocking such reform.  Why?  Well because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are big time democrat contributors.  Dodd, Kerry, Obama and H. Clinton being the 4 recipients receiving the most political contributions.  These contributions and other nepotism helped the two institutions stay in practice with liberal politicians blocking any reform.  What other nepotism you ask?  Well this sure looks like pretty clear evidence.  So that's why I'm very skeptical when Obama assumes zero fault in the current crisis, aside from the fact that democrats have controlled Congress since the 2006 mid-term elections.  See what happens when you mention this to a liberal, they are stumped, not only because they are severly ignorant to the economic flaws of their poverty pimp champions but also because they have absolutely no recourse.

How the administration handles this will be a good indicator of if they ever intend to steer away from a party divided Washington.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this story all but goes away in most news outlets in the coming days.  The White House has some spin to work on if they decide to address this at all.

The Real World: MTV’s 20- Something, Liberal Biased, “Reality”

   

    I have watched the Real-World since Season 1 and even as MTV has descended into skinny jean, materialistic, vapidity…I still watch almost every episode of most seasons.  The past season looks to be my last.  Maybe because now I’m too old to even be on the show and the real worlders seem so young and immature or maybe because MTV hand picks a liberal “melting pot” that marginalizes the conservative minority that they allow on the show.  The discerning viewer, however, is inadvertently treated to a legitimate microcosm of our current society.  I’ll explain this later.

     Take a close look at this past season, which was taped in concurrence with the presidential elections.  MTV cast a gay man (JD), a bisexual woman (Sarah), a transgender it (Katelynn), a black woman (Devyn) and a jaded-antiwar combat vet (Ryan).  Now, without asking their political affiliations, MTV could have reasonably assumed (based on demographics and historical voting trends) that they had five surefire liberals in the house.  Baya was “raised by hippies” so that makes six.  So MTV makes its cast 75% liberal during an election year, surprise surprise.  MTV has been influencing young voters since the Clinton/Bush election.  Interestingly enough, their ‘rock the vote’ campaign always features liberal celebrities encouraging young people to vote.  Anyway, back on the subject.  We are left with two cast members who are conservative republicans and one of them (Chet) seemed to be pegged by producers early on as a closet homosexual waiting for the freedom of NYC to open the door for him.  I bet they were hoping that a liberal conversion would happen but luckily for fans of objectivity, he was only really, really metro.

            MTV decided to edit the election episode so it was completely void of any real political dialogue.  I believe Chet, Scott and Ryan are probably the most intelligent and informed members of the house and I’m assuming (because I heard nothing to the contrary in regards to legitimate political knowledge) that all of the members in the house voted based on the categories they fell in.  Think about it, MTV casts half of its members who have direct interest in election issues (gay marriage/rights and the Iraq War).  Funny, they only cast based on one political view though.  After the election, the liberal cast members were seen dancing through the streets and gloating to their seemingly better informed conservative roommates.  When did elections become Army/Navy football games?  To me, that behavior proved how ignorant the cast members were in regards to politics.  And instead of airing relevant political debate, MTV decided to just glorify the images of the liberal “winners” as sort of visual propaganda to hoards of young people. 

            Now what’s really hypocritical about the liberals on this season’s show was their intolerance of conservative viewpoints.  During the reunion episode, Chet complains that Sarah mocked his religion and often joked about how silly the stories in the Bible were.  How come these same liberals, who want you to be tolerant of sexual deviant supreme Katelynn the trannie, find it acceptable to discount and mock someone’s religion because they don’t agree with it?  They are always whining for everyone else to be accepting of anyone and everyone.  What’s worse is that MTV portrayed Chet as a freak because he is a virgin.  How did that become abnormal and paying tens of thousands of dollars to have your genitals mutilated in a third world country is to be accepted as normal because IT is finally expressing itself?  Now you will argue that I’m just being biased but I think I’m a reasonable barometer.  I’m not a hard line Christian or transgender…I just use the common sense test.  If I was completely center in regards to all moral and social issues, and my children could either be influenced far left or far right…I would pick far right.  Why?  Because I’d rather them subscribe to a religion that is founded on principles that abstains from behaviors destructive to the individual and society than far left principles that celebrate depraved sexual deviance.  I’m simply reporting what I saw.  Katelynn itself, in a bid to gain acceptance, claimed to participate in a transgender “five some”.  Anyone who doesn’t think that’s destructive and deviant behavior probably visited the same “genital artist” in Thailand as Katelynn.   So, MTV makes it wrong to think that being transgender is wrong, but they make it acceptable to mock religion.

All of this is ok though, as now I will relate the ultimate microcosm because in one episode we were treated to a serendipitous display of the liberal/conservative dynamic.  When Katelynn is running out of money, it tries to gain financial stability by getting drunk and rubbing its vile man butt on unwitting straight, drunk men in poorly lit clubs across New York City.  When this money making venture falls short, ‘it’ is left with no decision but to leave the house.  That’s where hardworking, self motivated, fiscally conservative and responsible Scott comes in.  He “redistributes his wealth” to liberal Katelynn to the tune of $1,500 which allows her to stay on the show.  Katelynn then, in the true fashion of failing corrupt liberal social programs, squanders “its” entitlements playing black jack in Atlantic City.  I couldn’t have written it better myself MTV.