Attitude Makes All the Difference

Many believe that relations between whites and blacks have seriously deteriorated over the past few years.  This has reached an ugly peak with the ambush and assassinations of police in Dallas and Baton Rouge in the last few days.  

I can't claim to fully understand what black people experience in their lives and their relationship to the police and other authority figures.  Is there racism in our society?  Of course there is and the harsh reality is that there will always be racists, bigots, and other assorted idiots in the human race.  Racism will never be completely eradicated due to the imperfection of human beings.  What's a person to do?

Change starts with each individual.  President Obama lectures us on how the police need to acknowledge their racism and mend their ways.  This, however, is a two way street.  What responsibility do blacks have in this?  The fact of the matter is that blacks commit violent crimes at a higher rate than whites, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  Black-on-black crime is rampant in some cities, yet the President doesn't seem to want to address this issue.  Police behavior is often in response to black criminal behavior; according to the FBI, the rate at which cops are killed by blacks is 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by the police.  

So where does attitude enter into all this?  Did you know that a black man by the name of Charlie Brown spent half his life in slavery and couldn't read, yet when he was freed he built a business domain in Brazoria County, Texas?  He eventually bought the plantation where he had been a slave, married his wife, who was also a former slave, and when he died in 1920, he was a millionaire. Where might Mr. Brown have ended up had he spent his life lamenting the injustice of slavery?  I doubt he would have achieved much success had he chosen to wallow in victimhood.

The first self-made female millionaire in this country was a black woman, Sarah Breedlove, a.k.a. Madam C.J. Walker.  Early in her life, she faced odds that were heavily stacked against her.  She was orphaned at 7, married at 14, and widowed at 20.  After she began losing her hair, she developed a line of hair care products, successfully fighting racism and sexism along the way and making a place for herself alongside America's elite entrepreneurs.  

The point I'm trying to make is that these black people achieved fantastic success long before affirmative action or the Civil Rights Act.  How could that be?  Racism, and in the case of Madam C.J. Walker, sexism, were much more common and blatant in those days, yet they triumphed in spite of it.  I suspect that attitude, determination, and personal discipline played a role in their success.  These are personal traits that are seriously lacking in many individuals of all colors these days.  

I'd like to see our so-called leaders quit talking about eradicating racism; it's impossible.  It will always be with us, so how about talking about achieving excellence and success in spite of it?  It can be done!

The Variable that Liberals Try to Ignore

President Obama's obsession with "income inequality" seems to be spreading around the globe.  This ideology leads proponents to enact policies that take money from those who earn it and redistribute it to those who are less fortunate and/or less industrious.  I can't help noticing, however, that these ideologues don't seem to redistribute their own wealth. They only want to use other people's money.

It would be wonderful to have everyone making good money and having a high standard of living, but this is not likely to ever happen.  People are equal in the eyes of their Creator and should certainly have equal opportunity to become successful.  People, however, differ in their levels of intelligence, ambition and personal discipline.  For these reasons, equal opportunity can never assure equal outcomes.

Why don't wealth redistribution and socialistic policies work?  These are things that might be good in theory, but in reality have unintended consequences.  Throughout human history, there has been one thing that has remained constant and unchanged.  It's also the variable that liberals try to ignore:  human nature.  The human race has a certain number of "slackers", those who don't pull their own weight.  I'm not referring to those who can't work, I'm referring to those who won't work.  If the government is taking money from those who produce wealth and giving it to those who won't work, it essentially is giving the slackers a reason not to work.  Why work for money if you can just have it handed to you?!

On the other hand, the drive to work hard and earn a good living is dampened by the knowledge that the government is just going to take a huge chunk of it.  Thus, both earners and takers end up losing the incentive to become productive and in the end, wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of a few, while the great mass of people are poor and miserable, albeit equal.  

Human nature is not going to change.  It's normal for people to want to keep what they earn and, unfortunately, it's also a human weakness to want things to be easy.  The goal should be to provide ample opportunity to everyone and educate people to the fact that dependence on government will never provide financial security or true freedom.  

The Morphing of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security was formed during the George W. Bush administration in response to the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001.  National Strategy for Homeland Security defines their mission as  "a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur". Because the Department of Homeland Security also encompasses the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), they are also responsible for preparation for and response to natural disasters.

It should be clear to every thinking person that our main threat from terrorism comes from Muslim fanatics. There have been numerous attacks by Islamists against Americans and other westerners:  the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the ultimate attack on our own soil on September 11, 2001, to name a few. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorist attacks on this country have been by Muslims.  

During the Obama administration, a couple of things that raise red flags have occurred. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security, has made it clear that she considers returning veterans and conservative political groups to be dangerous and possible terrorist threats. At the same time, the administration twists itself into knots in their efforts to avoid labeling violent acts as terrorism, and in particular terrorism perpetrated by Muslims.  For example, in 2009 Major Nidal Hassan went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Hassan had clearly displayed signs of growing fanaticism, carried cards identifying him as a "soldier of Allah" and shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he murdered 13 people and attempted to kill 32 others.  Yet, in spite of this, Obama has insisted on referring to this horrible incident as "workplace violence".  

On the other hand, there were protests yesterday by tea party members outside several IRS offices across the country in response to the IRS' admission that they unfairly targeted conservative groups seeking nonprofit status.  Despite what Obama and other left-wingers would have you believe, tea party gatherings are not known for being violent or disruptive, yet armed Homeland Security agents were highly visible at these protests.  Why not have the local police there instead? The answer is that tea party members are usually conservative and clearly Napolitano considers them a threat to the security of this country.  

This shift in attitude is, to my way of thinking, alarming.  Add to that the fact that Homeland Security has recently purchased 2,700 armored vehicles for domestic use and it starts to get creepy. Last, but certainly not least, DHS has also gone on a buying spree for ammunition, stockpiling an astounding 1.6 billion bullets.  Makes one wonder what they're preparing for, doesn't it? 

Guns Can Save Lives Too

President Obama and Vice-President Biden are meeting today with victims of gun violence.  Since fairness seems to be important to Obama, having heard him use the word "fair" several times in his efforts to redistribute our wealth, I'm just wondering if Obama and Biden will also be talking to some of the people who have saved lives with their guns?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Did you know.....


• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck. 
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. 
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. 
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. 
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. 
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two co-workers who carried concealed handguns. 
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. 
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon. 
2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance arrived. 

Of course, you probably didn't know any of this because mainstream media doesn't find it worth reporting. It's not sensational enough and doesn't fit with their agenda. What's insane is people who think removing rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe. 
I wonder what else we have NOT been told, before it's too late.

A Little Straight Talk

I'm sick of the double-talk emanating from Washington these days.  It's nothing new, but don't you just sometimes reach the point where you want to scream "Enough!!"?

For starters, let's call "revenue" what it really is - taxes.  Some people seem to think that the federal government just has money falling from the heavens  into the national treasury, but make no mistake about it:  the only income the government has is what it confiscates in taxes.  Obama doesn't have a "stash" - that money belongs to we, the people.  

The president told Barbara Walters he doesn't believe Republicans will hold "middle class tax cuts hostage".  Let's be clear here:  no one is getting a tax cut next year.  One of two things is going to happen:  either the current tax rates stay the same, at least for most of us, or taxes will rise.  But there are no cuts being discussed and the language being used is meant to deceive and mislead.  

The political antics on both sides are frustrating and disgusting.  Wouldn't it be refreshing if politicians, for once, stored their egos away and put the interest of the country first?  I won't hold my breath on this one.   

Polls: True or Skewed?

Many of the current polls are indicating that President Obama is significantly ahead of Mitt Romney.  I wade into the area of polling with great trepidation, but here goes.

Rasmussen, which historically has been the most accurate poll, currently has the candidates tied. They also show that Republicans have a 4 percentage point advantage over Democrats in terms of party affiliation.  

Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, Democratic pollsters, have both expressed the belief that the polls are skewed against Romney.  Pollsters are basing their samples on voter turnout from 2008, when Democratic turnout was greater than Republican.  However, they are ignoring the elections of 2010, when Republicans turned out en masse to repudiate the Obama agenda. Does anyone really believe Democrats will turn out in bigger numbers than Republicans this year?  

It is my belief that pollsters are attempting to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.  It is a pathetic attempt to discourage Republican voters, but it is not going to work.  In fact, I suspect it may actually backfire on them.  It is my hope that people who plan to vote for Obama see these polls and believe that he has it wrapped up and therefore won't feel the need to actually go cast their votes.   

Weakness = No Respect

Obama's tepid response to the killing of American citizens in Libya and Egypt is shameful.  Is he still nursing this ridiculous fantasy that we can use diplomacy and sanctions to bring order to this part of the world?

Our response to this outrage should be swift and decisive. We need to make it abundantly clear that we will not tolerate this and these murders will be punished.  

Last night, Juan Williams defended the president's weak response, in effect saying we shouldn't do anything to further anger the Muslims.  I have a news flash for you, Juan: fanatic Muslims are perpetually pissed off regardless of what we do or don't do.  The only thing they understand is force and strength, both of which are notably absent from this administration.   

Emotions and the Polls

Obama has gotten a bounce in the  polls since the Democratic convention.  Hopefully, it will be, as Peggy Noonan called it, a "dead-cat bounce", similar to what happened after the Navy SEALS killed bin Laden.  

How can anyone with even half a brain vote for Obama?  According to the polls, Obama is viewed as more empathetic than Romney.  Is that a good reason to vote for someone?  A disturbing number of people appear to believe that Obama really cares more for people than Obama.  Yeah, right.   How can Obama care for people he doesn't know when he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya, who lives in utter poverty?  

I fear that ignorance and downright stupidity will get Obama re-elected.  There are too many people in this country who operate on emotion and willfully ignore facts. There's nothing inherently wrong with emotions - we all have them - but they are a poor foundation on which to base important decisions.

I'm beginning to think that potential voters should have to demonstrate at least some rudimentary knowledge and understanding of current events before they are allowed to vote.  Would that be unconstitutional?

The "Unsurprise": Obama rejects Canadian pipeline

The White House is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that Republicans forced him into this decision.  This is what the president wanted to do all along, but he now is trying to say that Congress is rushing it and not allowing adequate review.  I'm under the impression that the State Department has been reviewing this for the past 3 years - how much time does he need?!  


Our president is a spineless wonder who refuses to take responsibility for anything.  Not that this is a surprise; every decision this man makes is politically and ideologically driven. This pipeline would be good for our economy, would provide jobs and make us less dependent on hostile countries for our oil. It's a no-brainer and Obama is either dumb as a box of rocks or he's deliberately trying to hurt our country. God help us if he's re-elected.  

Better for Republicans Not to Win the House in November?

Republicans are expected to make significant gains in the House and Senate in November.  Is it possible that it would be better for the Republicans if they don't take over the House after the election?

I admit that this is something I hadn't considered.  However, I read a rather provocative article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by columnist Gerald F. Seib.  As put forth by Mr. Seib, it would very likely benefit the Republicans not to take over the House after the election, especially since it's unlikely that they will take over the Senate as well. He argues that even if they win control of the House, it will be by such a small margin that they won't be able to control anything.  But being the majority party in the House would put them in the forefront and force them to absorb blame for much of what goes wrong in Washington.  On the other hand, one must take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. 

In addition, Mr. Seib argues that if the Republicans take over the House, this will give Obama an excuse to move to the political middle, which is where he probably needs to be in order to win re-election in 2012. 

I do have a problem with his second argument, however.  Mr. Seib notes that Bill Clinton moved to the political center after Democrats lost the house in 1994.  There are a couple of important differences between Clinton and Obama though.  Bill Clinton is a liberal, but not an ideologue, and he is capable of moderation in some matters.  Obama, however, is a dedicated ideologue, even though he argues that he's not.  He can say "I'm not an ideologue" until the cows come home, but the fact is that he behaves like an ideologue.  He has shown us his true colors and he has no credibility as a centrist (I admit he has no credibility with me in any realm).  If he attempts to maneuver to the political center, it will be obvious to everyone that this is nothing more than a cynical ploy.  I rather doubt that Obama would do this.  I suspect he would rather move his agenda forward and be a one term president than be a two-termer with a watered-down agenda. 

Rigidity, Thy Name is Obama

Over the past 9 months of his presidency, Obama has shown that he is, if nothing else, inflexible.  Here is a man who sets his sights on something and refuses to admit error or change course, even when the need to do so is obvious to everyone else. 

His singular focus is on national health care and not even the unspeakable tragedy at Ft. Hood could derail his talk to native Americans on pushing his health care through.  Obama showed incredible insensitivity and poor judgment in proceeding with his talk, in a light-hearted vein I might add, as though nothing untoward had happened. 

Articles have been written in which the judgment of his advisers was questioned.  This man is president of the United States; does he really need advisers to tell him that choosing to proceed as he did was inappropriate?  Why couldn't he discern that on his own?

There is obviously a problem here, but just what is the nature of that problem?  Is obama so lacking in empathy that he is unable to perceive pain in others?  Is he so determined to force governmental health care on us that he will push aside common decency to attain his goal?  Or is it that he relies on handlers to tell him what to do and when to do it and is incapable of making decisions on his own?   Or, sorry to say, perhaps the problem is multifocal and involves all of the above. 

Little Known Facts of the Healthcare Bill

I heard an interesting and horrifying interview with Dr. Betsy McCaughey, a health policy expert and patient advocate who has actually read the entire Kennedy healthcare proposal.

As many already have realized, Barack Obama is not telling us the whole truth about the healthcare bill (yes, I realize there are several versions of the bill floating around at this time). Obama has repeatedly said that we won't have to give up our current medical plan or doctor if we're happy with them. What he's not telling us is that if we lose our current insurance or want to change our plan, we cannot get a new private plan. We must choose the government option.

According to Dr. McCaughey, there is a lot of "Washington double-talk" in the Kennedy bill. For example, "No individual shall be compelled to enroll in a 'qualified' health plan" (sec. 3101). BUT, when you file your tax return, you must provide the IRS with proof of your enrollment in a qualifying plan. If you fail to do so, the IRS, in coordination with the expanded federal office on electronic medical records and a new state bureaucracy called a Gateway, will track you down, notify you of your failure, and fine you. The size of the fine will be determined by the secretary of health and human services and will be substantial enough to ".....accomplish the goal of enhancing participation." Is Congress going to participate in this plan? Of course not - they've exempted themselves!

One of Obama's chief advisers on this is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of chief of thugs Rahm Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel believes the Hippocratic Oath is responsible for "overuse" of medical care. He has bemoaned the fact that the Hippocratic Oath drives doctors to do everything they can for a patient, regardless of cost. Isn't that what we want and expect our physicians to do? The point is, how much is done (or not done) for a patient should be between the doctor and the patient - the government shouldn't have a say in it.

The new coordinator of health information technology is Dr. David Blumenthal, who believes that there should be limits on the amount of health care people can get. I don't shock easily, but I am appalled at how coldly Obama talks about end of life decisions. I have inferred from what he has said that he believes once you reach a certain age, you shouldn't really pursue medical treatment. You should just give up, go into a hospice and get out of the way as quickly as possible.

The implication seems to be that once you get old, develop infirmities or become handicapped your life is not of value anymore. How sad and frightening that our president apparently sees human beings as expendable once they lose their usefulness.