Tag Archives: New Jersey race for governor

New Demographic Called “First Global Citizens” Threatens G.O.P.’s Future?

Bookmark and Share    John Zogby is a seasoned political analyst with a proven record of success. As President and CEO of Zogby International he has built a premier organization that, since 1984, has helped to monitor public opinion in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. With groundbreaking technological advances zogbyzZogby has combined the efforts of computer experts, economists, mathematicians, psychologists, sociologists, linguists and political scientists to help establish not only what people are thinking but why they are thinking a certain way and how they will react to other issues based on that thinking.

The process has helped to make Zogby one of the most accurate polling agencies in the world. It has also provided John Zogby with insight and a true a sense of the terrain he deals with.

In the wake of the 2008 elections, the data and a keen sense of that data has led John Zogby to a few conclusions.

The first of which gives birth to a new term describing a new generation of voters. These are voters between the age of 18 and 29 and John Zogby calls them “First Global Citizens”.

These people are so named because according to Zogby, the new crop of 18 to 29 year olds are a post racial bunch who maintain far less racial and ethnic biases than generations before them. They also see more of the world as their playground. Those in this age bracket see their spending time in foreign lands as very likely and very natural. Unlike previous generations which viewed such thoughts as rare occassions or once in a lifetime experiences, First Global Citizens see time out of country as a regular occurrence. Further evidence of this wave is the fact that after the election, polling of those in the 18 to 29 age group showed that more than 61 percent of them own passports. This number far exceeds other groups, including those 65 and older who are retired and at a point in life where they have the time travel.

These characteristics are probably the natural results of a world where technological advances have expanded the reach of global inhabitants. Far off lands are common place on our computers, the convenience of travel is ever increasing, a global economy is linking corporate and industrial interests closer and closer together and employment opportunities are bursting across borders as foreign economies increase in growth, power and influence.

And while all this is happening, new generations which have been raised by predecessors who fought off more and more racial injustices with the passing of each generation before them. These new First Global Citizens were raised by more people who instilled in them the concept of seeing people for their inner selves rather than their outer shells.

So it is natural to assume that perhaps we are witnessing one of the first generational groups to come of age in America that is comprised primarily of an attitude that sees past colors and labels. That is nothing but good and it all helped to elect America’s first African-American President.

This inaugural generation of American Global Citizens related to Barack Obama.

Along with being technically in tune with the generation due to a tech savvy campaign organization, Obama also maintained a “global” aura. With roots in Kenya and the American heartland, living and learning in Indonesia and being raised in the poly-ethnic surroundings of Hawaii his unique history provided a perfect narrative for a new generation of global minded young adults.

I have expanded on Zogby’s description of those in his newly penned demographic group but it need not any confirmation from me. It is quite a logical and rational hypothesis. It is one that he has convinced me of.

But it is one that also sends chills down my spine.

It makes me question our future with a great deal of consternation.

I do not for a moment question the good judgment finally achieved by First Global Citizens when it comes to their apparent ability to break through racial and ethnic barriers. That kind of harmony helps to strengthen us. What I do however question is the extent to which the mentality of globalization or being a “global citizen” is taken.

As First Global Citizens give way to second and third American generation global citizens what attitudes will they be passing on to successive generations?

Will the growing attitude of globalization so dilute our sovereignty and concern for our sovereignty that America is reduced to a way of life that is influenced by the rest of the world more than it influences the rest of the world?

Will the following generations of American Global Citizens feel little need to preserve some of that which made us distinctly American? Things like our constitution and the concept of freedom?

America has been struggling to live up to its early and original direction long before the influence of the First Global Citizens. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are constantly under assault. From judges who try to legislate from the bench to full scale invasions by tens of thousands and millions who sneak into our nation each year, many of our basic values are threatened. Complacency often allows the chips to fall where they may and the issues to be put aside for another day.logoallc

In the mean time we build a government that continuously increases in size, constantly increases its regulation of our lives, and seemingly becomes less and less responsive to our desires.

We went adrift long before America’s First Global Citizens came of age with more of a sense for global citizenship than American citizenship. Now that they have come of age what is to become of us? Will we continue to care less about our distinctly American way of life? Will we take things like NAFTA and expand them even further? Perhaps, as some sectors have already proposed, we will do away with the dollar for our 50 states and adopt the Amero for the Americas…North, South and Central.

I have spent quite some time countering the policies of some which I have called isolationist. I abhor isolationist policies and thinking. I understand, perhaps more than some, that we are intertwined in this world. Our environments, our health, our security and even our economics are all tied together to one degree or another. So do not for a single minute think that I am seeking xenophobic or isolationist policies. But I do not want to walk too far into the opposite extreme either.

I do not want America to lose its promise or purpose. I do not want America to lose sovereignty and sight. I want my nation to always serve as a beacon for the goals we once set out for. A nation where our people are safe, secure, free and unobstructed. I want a nation where we determine our own fates based on those characteristics. I want a nation that, through our example, influences the world for the better rather than one that is influenced by the worst in the world. It is my hope that John Zogby’s First Global Citizens are of the same thought. It is my hope that all worldly Americans understand the importance of our founding principles and seek to have those principles applied by those they chose to lead us.

Zogby claims that the favor which First Globals’s place on President Obama is a bad sign for Republicans. He believes that this prolific demographic has no concern with labels and that references to left or right ideologies means little to them. They are more concerned with results.

Again I will not dispute Mr. Zogby’s evaluation but what I do contest is his assessment that this means trouble for the future of the Republican party.

Zogby feels that the G.O.P. has been shaped by an economic, social and religious orthodoxy that First Global Citizens reject. I believe that although there are participants of traditional values under the umbrella of the G.O.P., there is also an overriding concern among party ideologues to insure that our government maintains a level of governance that does not stymie individuality and individual freedom. It is a level of governance that can appeal to the individuality and independent sensibilities of First Globalists.

It is also my opinion that along with Mr. Zogby’s descriptions of First Global Citizens comes another characteristic that they possess. Along with their dislike for labels, members of this demographic maintain little loyalty to “labels”. That includes political allegiance.

Such a lack of partisan conviction makes First Global Citizens more prone to ticket splitting. They are not a part of the “vote column A, all the way” thinking of other demographics which have often been responsible for making one party win across the board during any particular election cycle.

This means that the mentality of future voters will tend to be far less monolithic in their political preferences.

It also means that keeping a vast majority of First Global Citizens on his side will prove to be a tough job for President Obama. This untraditional demographic does not appreciate blind allegiance to special interest groups. They may not take lightly to the liberal orthodoxy of Democrats which, more often than not, cave into the many special interests that line their pockets. First Global Citizens are not likely to appreciate the liberal tendency for political pandering that creates wedge issues and leads to their catering to one group at the expense of all others.

Zogby’s new found demographic is indeed a reality to deal with it. However putting this demographic in one political column more than the other may just be a bit premature on his part.

Despite the fact that each new generation of Americans brings a new characteristic to the table some things never change. One of those things is the fact that Americans have and always will have “a throw the bums out” mentality. As such, after a few years in power, the powerful often become the “bums” that we want to throw out.

President Obama is no bum. At least not yet. With only months in office, the American drive for renewal and reinvigoration still exists for President Obama. But if he fails to prove himself to be as unconcerned with labels as First Global Citizens are, he, himself will be labeled a bum and Zogby’s First Global Citizens will be the first to throw him out.

Bookmark and Share

I really do love this country, but…

1. Only in America… can a pizza get to your house faster than an ambulance.

2. Only in America… are there handicap parking places in front of a skating rink.

3. Only in America… do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.

4. Only in America… do people order double cheese burgers, large fries, and a diet coke.

5. Only in America… do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.

6. Only in America… do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.

7. Only in America… do we use answering machines to screen calls and then have call waiting so we won’t miss a call from someone we didn’t want to talk to in the first place.

8. Only in America… do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.

9. Only in America… do we use the word ‘politics’ to describe the process so well: ‘Poli’ in Latin meaning ‘many’ and ‘tics’ meaning ‘bloodsucking creatures’.

10. Only in America… do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

With Hindsight, Armchair Generals Still Say Saddam Should Have Been Spared

Bookmark and Share    There are those who, till even this day, base their entire political being on the claim that the war in Iraq was wrong and had no legitimate foundation behind it . Some even join with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and claim that we lost the war.

wotThese isolationists and leftists maintain, that there was absolutely no reason for the United States to focus any military attention on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the days, months and even years after 9/11.

With creative flair, they refer to 9/11 as a ploy and claim that supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom simply used 9/11 as an excuse. Others delve deeper and extrapolate that the true reason behind the overthrow of Hussein was a corporate conspiracy spearheaded by oil interests led by Haliburton. Others say it was a family matter that involved the revenge of one presidential son of another President who Saddam once tried to assassinate.

Putting aside theoretical liberal reasoning for Republican support of the Iraqi war and their tendency to believe that Republicans do not care about the lives of those who carry the war out, what these people fail to realize and comprehend are facts. They fail to accept the reality of the time.

Most basic to the reality that they deny is the fact that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the policy of the United States since 1991. Initially we urged the people of Iraq to do it. Unfortunately those we hoped to do so, such as the Kurds, are also the people we left hanging and they paid dearly for it.

In 1995, under President Clinton, the C.I.A. organized a covert coup to topple Saddam Hussein. It failed.

Three years later, still acknowledging the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, in 1998, President Clinton signed into law a congressionally approved bill called The Iraqi Liberation Act.

Through it all, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on few things other than the fact that an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein was an Iraq that threatened American interests, Mid East peace and international security.

Other small factors included things like cease fire agreements and United Nations resolutions.

After the original Gulf War, Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD‘s. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. Yet for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. Additionally, he denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions regarding weapons development and procurement.

I would contend, that if the American word is to mean something in the world, we should have removed Saddam immediately following the very first time he violated the cease fire agreement that we had with him. That would have eliminated his threat back in late 1991. But we didn’t.

I would contend that we had reason to topple Saddam after he defied the very first UN resolution regarding inspections. But we didn’t.

Instead we allowed him to skirt the terms that were established to contain him and render his ability to be a threat ineffectual.

It wasn’t until after 9/11 that America realized that the risks we faced were great and the threats that exist are serious.

Up until 9/11, aside from shooting back on an Iraqi jet that fired at us outside of an established no-fly zone in Iraq, a failed C.I.A. backed coup, a continuous string of disregard for UN violations and inability to enforce proper weapons inspections and a signed congressional act calling for the liberation of Iraq, we did little more than provide lip service to the agreed fact that Saddam Hussein was a danger and needed to be eliminated.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

Around this same time, based on information collected by the Clinton administration, long before anyone could even accuse the Bush administration of falsifying facts, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”.

Shortly after that, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd stated ”The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, a previous liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

It was rather obvious that Saddam needed to go and that fact never changed. Years later, even after there being no weapons of mass destruction found, other evidence of sinister intentions does exist. The discovery of over 500 degraded missile casings designed to carry deadly chemicals actually supports such conclusions.

Then there exists the evidence of what Saddam was known to actually be doing.

Leading Iraqi inspectors and figures with the International Atomic Energy Agency stated “there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development “right up until the end” to improve their ability to produce ricin. “They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,”

They add “Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990’s….”

All of this points to the fact that there was little disagreement regarding Saddam Hussein between both Democrats and Republicans and there was little to distinguish any difference between the Bush administration or the Clinton administration when it came to Iraq.

All except for one.

After the devastating results of 9/11 materialized, the administration of President George W. Bush decided to take action. President Bush decided that lip service was no longer a good enough strategy when it came to eliminating threats.

That explanation produces a knee-jerk reply from the left and isolationists. To that, like Pavlov’s dog, they jump to their feet and scream “but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists”.

An oversimplification of events might make their stale reply seem rational but a scratch of the surface of that shallow argument reveals the truth, which those who make that claim, refuse to accept.

Although there has been no connection between the 19 terrorists who participated in the hijacking of the airplanes that produced 9/11, there is no denying that they were terrorists and as a result, on September 20th, 2001, President Bush declared a War On Terror and in a speech to the nation he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.…”

Keeping that in mind, even though none of the 19, 9/11 hijackers came through Iraq, there is no doubt that, through Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists with a so-called “global reach”. The list of terrorists that fall into this category includes, but is not limited to:

Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993
Khala Khadr al-Salahat, who created the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
Abu Abas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan before he reentered the insurgency that followed the post Saddam days of Iraq”.

Given those names alone, bringing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein into the War On Terror was, and still remains, a legitimate part of the greater battle.

After 9/11, to have ignored Iraq and allowed Saddam to continue to rule with impunity would have been an irresponsible continuation of doing nothing more than offering dire warnings about what could happen and presenting legislation symbolic of what we should do to prevent it from coming to fruition.

In its wake, armchair generals, with more hindsight than foresight, took to calling this front misguided and a diversion. Yet what diversion was created? A diversion which attracted other terrorists to take up arms and flee to Iraq like flies to flypaper.?

Some will falsely claim that our efforts in Iraq gave opportunity to a resurgence of Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They will falsely claim that our decision to fight in Iraq put us in the position of fighting two different failed wars.

Those who make such claims are not just wrong, they are lying.

First of all, neither war has been lost. The coming fulfillment of our goals in Iraq has enabled President Obama to continue the same policy set in motion by the previous administration. Secondly does anyone believe for a minute that our efforts in Afghanistan would be any further ahead than they are now, had Saddam Hussein still been an active protagonist in the region?

Given his history, his continued intentions, ever present risk and consistent defiance of the international community and agreements with the U.S., no effective attempts to combat terrorism beyond mere words, could have been undertaken without neutralizing and removing Saddam Hussein from the equation. After more than a year of trying to achieve that goal through diplomacy, force was resorted to. That was a decision Saddam Hussein made. The opportunity to avoid military action was always there for him and he was the one to reject it.

In the end the United States had two choices. Either finally do something about Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat he posed and the proliferation of terrorism that he afforded opportunity to, or, once and for all put action behind our words and eliminate the threat and reduce the risks that we spoke so much about for over a decade.

In a post 9/11 government our government chose to act. Rather than risk having to react to another disastrous terrorist plot that claimed more innocent lives, we chose to prevent it.

The benefit of that decision is immeasurable, at least to us. We will never be able to count the lives spared by the removal of Saddam Hussein. We will not know how many future surprise attacks were prevented from occurring but what we do know is that there will be no more assisted or arranged terrorist or state sponsored attacks by Saddam.

We do know that a beachhead for democracy is developing in the heartland of intolerance in the Middle East. We do know that millions of Iraqi are now tasting freedom and for the first time in generations are living either in less fear or no fear. We do know that in addition to all the previous facts which gave reason to removing Saddam Hussein, others existed as well. Such as his support of Palestinian suicide bombers and his prompting of two regional wars. But in addition to that, Hussein’s oppression and extermination of his own people is justification in and of itself. Such humanitarian reasoning justified our actions in places like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti during the Clinton years. Why that alone is not enough cause for our actions in Iraq is an example of liberal hypocrisy.

Yet till this day, there are those who try to paint our actions as irresponsible, imperialistic forays of greedy, misguided political folly. They try to claim the Republican party who nominated a President that carried this action out is a party that has lost sight of its purpose.

Well to them I make it clear that the Republican party has not lost sight of our purpose, our beliefs or of what is important. The decision to include Iraq in the War on Terror is one that we stand by today as steadfast as we did on the day that Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

We are proud of the fact that Republicans finally achieved what, for too long, many only spoke about. We are proud to not excuse away the abuses of Saddam Hussein and ignore his treaty and cease fire violations. We are proud of the fact today, we are not having to add Saddam into an already complicated enough risk equation that involves Iran, North Korea, China, an erratic Russia and the still existing sources Islamic radicalism and terrorism.

Utopian romantics may try to argue how better off we would be had we ignored the facts and allowed Saddam Hussein to remain a player. They will calculate the immediate financial cost of the war and claim it to be the source of our great economic debt. In doing so, what they leave out of their equation is the long term cost that we would still be paying to continue countering Saddam Hussein. They also leave out the price we would be paying as it relates to the lives at risk or lost had Saddam continued with his ambitions.

What these deniers of truth fail to do is acknowledge the fact that America can no longer simply talk about what needs to be done to protect ourselves. We must do things to protect ourselves. What these liberal leaning, apologists for jihad refuse to do is admit that they would have been the first to crucify a Republican President had he not prevented Saddam Hussein from successfully enabling or carrying out any other terrorist related event. But we did, so now their need to point fingers of blame to anyone but themselves causes them to point blame, not at he who made such events possible, but at he who made them less likely.

Such people may continue to call opposition to their denial of facts extremists and they may try to evangelize their message by exploiting those whose lives were lost in the War On Terror but they do so at the risk of taking responsibility for the next terrorist attack that their ways fail to thwart.

Bookmark and Share



6.00 G-Had TV. Morning prayers.
8.30 Talitubbies. Talitubbies say “Ah-ah”. Dipsy and Tinky-Winky repair a Stinger missile launcher.
9.00 Shouts of Praise. More prayers.
11.00 Jihad’s Army. The Kandahar-on-Sea battalion repulse another attack by evil, imperialist, Zionist backed infidels.
12.00 Ready, Steady, Jihad! Celebrities make lethal devices out of everyday objects.
12.30 Panoramadan. The programme reports on Americas attempts to take over the world.
13.30 Xena: Modestly dressed Housewife. Xena stays at home and does some cooking.
14.00 Only Fools and Camels. Dhal-Boy offloads some Chinese rocket launchers to Hamas.
14.30 Green Peter. The total of Kalashnikovs bought by the milk bottle top appeal is revealed.
15.00 Madrasah Challenge. Two more Islamic colleges meet. Bambah Kaskhain asks the questions.’Starter for ten, no praying.’
15.30 I Love 629. A look back at the events of the year, including the Prophet’s entry into Mecca, and the destruction of pagan idols.
16.00 Question Time. Members of the public face questions from political and religious leaders.
17.00 Koranation Street. Deirdrie faces execution by stoning for adultery.
17.30 Middle-East Enders. The entire cast is jailed for unislamic behaviour.
18.00 Holiday. The team go on pilgrimage to Mecca. Again.
18.30 Top of the Prophets. Will the Koran be No.1 for the 63,728th week running?
19.00 Who wants to be a Mujahadin? Mahmoud Tarran asks the questions.
Will contestants phone a mullah, go ‘inshallah’, or ask the Islamic council?
20.00 FILM: Shariah’s Angels. The three burkha-clad sleuths go undercover to expose an evil scheme to educate women.
21.30 Big Brother. Who will be taken out of the house and executed this week?
22.30 Shahs in their Eyes. More hopefuls imitate famous destroyers of the infidel.
23.30 They think it’s Allah over. Quiz culminating in the ‘don’t feel it the Mullah’ round.
0.00 When Imams attack. Amusing footage shot secretly in mosques. The filmers were also secretly shot.
00.30 a.m. The West Bank Show. Arts programme looking at anti-Israel graffiti art in the occupied territories.
01.30 Bhuffi the Infidel Slayer. 
02.00 A book at bedtime. The Koran. Again.


Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    I understand that some national policies are  moving us  towards socialism and is  removing incentive from our society.  I realize that rewarding mediocrity is something that, in the long run, benefits no one. But what I did not realize is that there exists a protest movement that is going with the government flow and accepting medicrioty as a means to teach government a lesson.  The movement is accepting the results of national policies and reducing their high levels of productivity which are being penalized more than rewarded.

atlas_02It is called Going Galt.

It stems from a classic American novel written by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged. Although written in 1954, the book is as timely as ever.

It is a story about an America where the innovators and creators in our society have disappeared and we lose those of great talent and abilities. It is a theoretical description of the result of our loss of individuality and our market economy. In the book, the government is the oppressive bureaucracy that stifles success and rewards mediocrity. Government is the looter and it reflects the philosophy of socialism. Instead of rewarding success, government penalizes it.

As a result, a character in the book, named John Galt, covertly leads a movement to withdraw the most talented and innovative from the free market engine of the world economy. Galt leads those, who refuse to be exploited by looting governments, on a crusade that denies the looters any booty to loot.

Prompted by the government’s taking incentives out of success and innovation in order to spread the wealth, those who fuel our economy withdraw and government eventually loses its source of wealth and its means to sustain itself and the people it tries to spread wealth to.

That is the premise behind Going Gault.

One web site writes that “Going Galt is dropping out. Closing a business, leaving your job or just working to survive.”

This, in essence cuts off the funding source of government, otherwise known as the looters.

Without having your endless productivity to tax, the government will have nothing to loot and eventually the socialist desire to spread wealth is killed off by there being no wealth to spread.

Since we are becoming a society that increasingly punishes success and productivity many feel it is time for those who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less and let the government looters try to spread wealth with very little available wealth.

Current economic policy directions are making the Going Galt  movement more and more prevalent. After all, rally07President Obama ran and won on a platform that promised to take money from those who are productive and redistribute it to those who are not as productive or successful. So where is the incentive to be so productive? Where is the desire to earn more if that only means that more will be taken from you. 

This leads us to a modern day version of Atlas Shrugged.

Imagine the local supermarket whose owner has more money taken away from them for having a good business. Now imagine that supermarket owner closing his store and putting a sign up on the door that says “Going Galt”. Imagine that sign hanging on those closed doors for three or four days a week.

Under the current system of penalizing success, the store owner may end up with the same amount of money in his own pocket after selling less product than he could have made for selling more products.

Of course the government will also yield less from that store owner and will have less wealth to hand out to the employees of that store who will already be losing out on three or four days of employment and salary.

It’s a vicious cycle that creates a downward spiral  prompted by socialist policies which can’t sustain themselves and certainly cannot sustain our government. It is also the impetus behind Going Galt.

Some ways to Go Galt include stop investing. Capital gains taxes remove your profits and enable the government to continue and expand socialist policies. So dry up the source of the financing of those policies. Stop investing.

HowToGoGalt.com also suggests that you “Visit your local school board, or send a letter asking the economics department to teach free market capitalism. A great book to suggest is Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. I would also suggest donating Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, A Man In Full and other good books to your local school library. Put the pinch on local looters by voting down new tax levies, and supporting groups that fight new taxes. On the other hand it’s a good time to support vocational education and two year technical colleges. Stop giving money to your college alma mater. Just about every college embraces a socialist ideology.”

Going Galt is not a positive thing to have to do, it is really a last resort. But with the way things are going, many in society feel that we are that point.

After seeing some Republicans equivocate on fiscal issues and after witnessing Democrats adopt socialism, many feel that Going Galt,  breaking the government wealth distribution system and proving the point, is the only way to bring about change that is meaningful.

Going Galt  may actually be the change that we need in order to really give us hope again.

So the next time  a tax is raised, a new government program is created and a new private sector company is taken over by the federal government, send a message, Go Galt and let liberals begin to understand just how unsustainable socialism really is.

Bookmark and Share


Q: How does a politician or reporter sleep?
A: First he lies on one side, and then he lies on the other.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    “Every day, across New Jersey, across America, millions of people are sitting down at their kitchen tables and sorting out their family budgets. On the backs of envelopes … with pencils and calculators in hand … surrounded by stacks of bills and receipts … families are figuring out how to balance their income and expenses …And they’re doing this amid alarming economic circumstances.

You pick up the newspaper and see the national unemployment rate rising above 8%. You see neighbors losing their jobs, their homes and their health care. People worry they might be next.

The economy may not be “in shambles” as Warren Buffet remarked last week, but it is clear that this is no ordinary recession. And the costs of this economic crisis are exacting a serious, human toll.

jon-corzinePeople from all walks of life are tightening their belts. Around the kitchen table, every family knows what it means to make tough choices in these tough times. But people also understand the importance of making the right choices. They identify their most important priorities, and they change their spending habits to live within their means.”

That is how New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine began his annual budget speech.

He then went on to say that state government is in the same position as its people and must make hard choices. But as is the case with most of Governor Corzine’s words, that is not exactly the case.

What Governor Corzine forgets is that our state government and all its largess exists on the backs of its residents. Every clandestine union contract he has negotiated, every state mandate he has supported and every state employee he has hired is paid for not by a needy government but by suffering taxpayers who flip the bill for government.

So it is not true that New Jersey state government is “in the same position” as New Jersey citizens. New Jersey state government ushered in an economic crisis years before the national economy realized its banking crisis and tightening up of the flow of money.

Governor Corzine tried to paint a picture of a state government that is suffering as much as its people. What he failed to make clear is that the people are suffering because of what his state government is costing them and doing to them. What he failed to do was spare the taxpayer from suffering even more in the name of government. What Corzine did do is demand more sacrifices from the taxpayer for the benefit of the state government bureaucracy.

In his budget address, despite his contention that he is not growing the size of government, he failed to make government smaller and he failed to make life better for the citizens of New Jersey. Instead he made things worse.

Rather than try to turn around New Jersey’s dismal, worst in the nation, business environment he increased the already high taxes that decimated business in New Jersey and instead of attracting new business to New Jersey he increased the state‘s payroll tax and made the state less attractive to conduct business in.

Rather than reduce the state’s, highest in the nation property tax burden, he increased it even more.

Instead of cutting government costs and eliminating programs or implementing a hiring freeze, the governor expanded programs.

In his budget address, Governor Corzine portrayed himself as a man having to make tough decisions, yet what he proved to us is that he lacks the courage to make those tough decisions.

He refuses to make needed decisions to reform his bureaucracy. He refuses to reform the state’s under funded, deficit riddled pension system and he refuses to stand up to costly government mandates that will ruin entire communities in New Jersey from High Point in the North to Cape May in the South.

As liberal philosophy dictates, Corzine’s budget speech made it clear that increased taxes are his answer. It is the same thinking that led Corzine to raise taxes by nearly 2 billion dollars when he first came into office. Yet, even though he raised those taxes, today we are in a deficit of almost 2 billion dollars.

What went wrong?

The answer is that his leadership offered policies that did not shrink the size and scope of the states bureaucratic jungle but did make it more expensive to operate. That increase was passed on to the taxpayers and that subsequently worked against the state. Instead of meeting state revenue projections, we fell short. Instead of growing our economy, Corzine’s tax increases helped to shrink our economy and that helped to further reduce state revenues.

And what is the Governor’s proposed solution?

He gives us more of the same that got us to where we are today.

He raises sin taxes, business taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes and more. He even has the gall to portray his elimination of property tax rebates to the taxpayer as a budget cut. He is not cutting the budget, he is simply costing the taxpayer more.

But such is the thinking of a liberal Governor. Such is the work of a self proclaimed Wall Street financial guru who exited Goldman-Sachs with a golden parachute of more than 400 million dollars. This is the best he can do even with billions of extra dollars that his state is getting from the recent stimulus package.

How would he have maintained his political bureaucracy had New Jersey not received federal assistance?

The answer is simple. Corzine’s liberal thought process would have led him to propose tax increases much higher than he just did.

Do New Jerseyans really want four more years of this thinking? Aside from his questionable ethical practices and secret union negotiations with his girlfriend, do they really want four more years of Corzine’s Bernie Madoff economic practices? Do they really want more of the same unaccountable conduct and endless tax increases?

New Jerseyans need to realize that government is not always the answer and that more government is not a solution. If Governor Corzine could grasp that fact, he would ask the political bureaucracy of state government to sacrifice more than he is asking the citizens of New Jersey to sacrifice.

Lacking that understanding, on top of questionable ethics that he seems to have learned at The Governor Jim McGreevey School of Ethics, Governor Corzine is simply implementing economic policies that were seemingly taught at the Bernie Madoff School of Economics and as a result, all New Jerseyans are getting ripped off.

Bookmark and Share

When Albert Einstein died, he met three men in line outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what  their  IQs were.

The first replied 190. “Wonderful,” exclaimed Einstein. “We can discuss the contribution made to my mass-energy equivalence concept by Kenneth Bainbridge and his cyclotron research efforts “.

The second answered 150. “Good,” said Einstein. “I look forward to discussing the role of nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace“.

The third man mumbled 50.

Einstein paused, and then asked, “So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    Recently a doctor in New Jersey wrote his two senators and made it known that he opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He made it clear that he hoped for them to vote against the bill as it stood.

Well one of them, Frank Lautenberg, has yet to respond and in the case of Lautenberg everyday that goes by without a response creates an increasing risk for there never to be a response. At 85, Lautenberg has little time left and his pace has slowed down quite a bit and is not getting any faster these days.

However New Jersey’s junior senator, Robert Menendez, did send a reply to the good doctor’s correspondence.

menendezHe wrote:

 Dr. Harris;

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for education priorities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

…….Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate your support. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.

I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn of other important issues to New Jersey.

Robert Menendez
United States Senate

Wasn’t that nice? After letting the Senator know that he opposed the ARRA, Senator Menendez thanked Dr. Harris for supporting him.

Now there are two things to note here. Dr. Harris never acknowledged any support for the Senator. He simply asked the Senator to properly represent his views and vote against the bill and not only did Senator Menendez ignore that fact in his reply, in the end, he did exactly the opposite of what Dr. Harris hoped for and voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That does not warrant support. If anything it is reason for opposition to the Senator.

And then, of course, there is Senator Menendez’s totally, out of the blue, reference to Dr. Harris’ support for so-called “education priorities” in the bill.

Dr. Harris made no mention of such support. He never once mentioned education in his letter. But as you can see, Senator Menendez articulated his appreciation for it.

The incident shows us a few things.

First, few elected officials actually read through all of their mail. There is quite a lot of it so that should not to be held against them. So long as they have a hard working, attentive staff with a well run office and efficient constituency caseworkers.

Obviously Senator Menendez doesn’t.

Senator Menendez apparently has an overpaid staff stuffed with patronage positions that provide little more than lip service to those who he represents. The staffer who sent the wrong boilerplate response to Dr. Harris obviously does not care and that does not instill a great deal of confidence in the people Senator Menendez represents.

A good staff is a sign of a good legislator. A good staff not only properly communicates to the people, they properly communicate the needs and desires of the people to the legislator that they work for.

Granted, this is just one letter but it is symbolic. It is a symbol of just how detached the political class is from the people they represent.

Many of them almost feel that the politics they deal with is none of the people’s business. They feel that the people do not know any better and that the people would be better off if they just left things up to them.

Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in the video I submit for your review in this post.

In it, one of Washington, D.C.’s most powerful and corrupt politicians, Charlie Rangel, actually tells a fellow New Yorker from Brooklyn to “mind his G-Damn business” when he asks the Congressman to explain how he expects to get away with some of his shenanigans like driving a taxpayer subsidized Cadillac around for personal use, refusing to pay taxes on rent properties that he owns, and abuses the use of four rent controlled apartments below market rates all while writing the very tax code that he exempts himself from.

Now I am originally from Brooklyn and let me tell you, take away our baseball bats and other weaponry and you still will not be treated kindly by us after giving the response that Rangel did.

What Rangel seems to have forgotten is that as a public servant, his business is our business. It is especially our business, like it or not, when he is breaking and skirting the very laws that he is instrumental in writing and forcing us to live by while he doesn’t.Turnout Primary

These two examples may seem insignificant but they say a lot.

These examples are just more proof of the prevailing bad attitude that our political leaders posses. It demonstrates that many are out of touch with us and that they truly lack any connection to the fact that they are no better than us and that they are not immune from the legislation they create.

Of course it would help if we, the people, held our elected officials accountable when elections rolled around but that rarely happens. After all Charlie Rangel has been reelected to his Harlem congressional district 19 times. That’s 38 years.

Frank Lautenberg, who didn’t even bother to respond to Dr. Harris’ letter, has been reelected to the United States Senate five times.

And Senator Menendez was originally appointed to his senate seat. He subsequently won election to his seat after little more than a year of incumbency. His relative newness is what probably accounts for his at least pretending to care what the people think, even though his reply to Dr. Harris totally ignored the point he wanted addressed.

In the end, I guess it comes down to the fact that we get what we deserve. I mean if we want our elected officials to be held accountable, should we not hold ourselves accountable for the choices that we make when we vote for these elected officials?

Bookmark and Share


It’s tough being a politician. Half your reputation is ruined by lies; the other half is ruined by the truth!

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


 Photobucket                                    Photobucket

Bookmark and Share

This weekend will afford New Jerseyans the chance to see our political differences come together in a clash that will pit both sides of the ideological spectrum against each other.

On News 12’s Power & Politics Assemblyman Jay Webber will debate assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman as the two discuss the upcoming state budget and New Jersey’s race for Governor.

The program will air 4 times during the course of the weekend on

News 12:

Saturday at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m. and Sunday also at 10:00 a.m. & 3:00 p.m.

It is a program that you should definitely try to catch.

Both of these individuals are looked at as potential statewide candidates and both of them represent the ideological bases of their parties.

Our favorite is Assemblyman Jay Webber and after seeing him in action I am sure he will be yours too.


New Jersey is not known for being home to the most prominent conservative lawmakers and policy makers in the nation but that could soon change.

Right now New Jersey is witnessing a Republican primary for Governor that features probably one of the most conservative candidates to run for governor in any recent race, including the conservative safe havens of the southern United States. That of course is Steve Lonegan. But Lonegan is not alone. In fact he is not the only conservative running for Governor. Assemblyman Richard Merkt is also seeking the G.O.P. nod for governor and he too is pretty far right of center.

Aside from gubernatorial politics, there are some conservatives in New Jersey. In fact many of them flock to an annual event in New jersey called New Jersey Reagan Day. The event is organized by assemblyman and gubernatorial candidate Rich Merkt’s legislative partner in the Assembly, Jay Webber.

Assemblyman Webber is also a conservative. A young conservative who after his first term in the Assembly has shown himself to be a bright light that is leading the way for the conservative movement in New Jersey.

The fact that Merkt and Webber serve together, representing the same district in the state assembly says something in and of itself. It reminds us that there is hope in New Jersey and that there is hope for us to turn things around. If the people of Morris County can elect two conservatives to represent them, the state, as a whole, just might eventually be able to find one to represent and lead it.

That leader just might eventually wind up being Jay Webber.

As a freshman assemblyman, Jay Webber has let no grass grow under his feet.

In his first year in office he adhered to conservative doctrine and applied it to government. He knows that big government leads to big spending and he knows that big spending takes the money out of the pockets of the governed. That is why he has sponsored over a billion dollars worth of tax cuts and it is why he joined with others to find ways to reduce state spending by as much as he would reduce taxes.

However; Assemblyman Webber is not just a fiscal conservative. He understands that our conservative values and principles do not stop after fiscal concerns. That is why he has led the fight to reform Health Care. His legislation focuses on keeping choices available to the people and even increase their options by making it possible to buy insurance across state lines. Aside from making insurance more affordable through greater competition his bill mandates that pre-existing conditions would be covered. That measure would help protect the interests of those most vulnerable and in need of decent health care coverage.

With an eye not only what is happening now, Assemblyman Webber has legislated with an eye on the future as well. Rather than rubber stamping legislative solutions which might be seen as quick fixes, he has opposed such measures as the Highlands Act, forced consolidation, Abbot funding and other unruly state mandated measure that would break the backs of communities and taxpayers.

His legislative initiatives are quite varied and as a primary sponsor those initiative range from exempting military personnel receiving combat zone pay from the gross income tax to opening up the government process and making government more transparent. His legislation demonstrates a belief in people more than government and at 37 and just in his first term in office, Assemblyman Webber is proving himself to be a leader of the conservative cause and a true leader for New Jersey.

Don’t miss him this weekend!


For today’s regularly scheduled  POLITICS 24/7  post BECAUSE DEMOCRATS HAVE ADOPTED SOCIALISM” and joke of the day visit click here

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share   Norman Mattoon Thomas believed in socialism. He had no evil intentions and he had no desire for government control. He just wanted life to be better for everyone. He just wanted to spread the wealth and did not trust free markets. But the only way for government to foster his hope to spread the wealth thomas-button-awas through government control and because of that, few remember N. M. Thomas.

Before becoming a socialist politician, Mr. Thomas was a Presbyterian pastor and a pacifist. And while he opposed our entry into World War II he also opposed communism and fascism but his greatest opposition was to the American economic system.

But such beliefs never got Norman Matoon Thomas very far.

The height of his political career was achieved after the death of Socialist Party leader Eugene Debs in 1926. Upon Debs death Thomas took the helm and ran the Socialist Party until 1955 when he stepped down from his leadership post but continued to be the Socialist Party’s most visible spokesman.

Along the way, Thomas did run for Governor of New York, twice, but lost. In between those unsuccessful runs for office he ran for President of the United States as the socialist candidate in 1928, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948. Each time he lost resoundingly.

The closest he ever came was in 1944 when he maxed out with no electoral votes and 880,000 votes from the general electorate.

In each of his elections and throughout his leadership of the Socialist Party, he failed to convince a preponderance of Americans that socialism was the way to go and in what was probably his most famous speech, at the conclusion of one of his last bids for elected office, Thomas said “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Well ladies and gentleman that day is right ahead of us.

Right now we are witnessing the rapid transformation to that day and place. The place where ingenuity, entrepreneurial spirit and motivation is replaced by government bureaucracy. Where the food on the table is not earned by you or selected by you, but is placed there by a government that will increase in it’s size and power. A government that will increase its control upon us.

As Thomas made clear through his words, governmental liberalism is a political philosophy that is essentially basedthomas_norman-a in the very roots of socialism. And as a liberal thinker, President Obama has shown that to be true.

During his campaign for President he came right out and said that he wants to spread the wealth.

To many, that sounded good. It sounded sincere and defendable. Yet the problem is that the wealth President Obama wants to spread is not his. It is our ours. As President, he has no government wealth to spread. Our government is only as wealthy as our people and if they are not making money, the government isn’t making any money. This is a lesson that many nations have already learned and apparently, it is one that we will have to learn again.

I for one believe as Margaret Thatcher did when she said “the problem with socialism is that you run out of everyone else’s money.”

I for one do not believe in the socialism that America has rejected for so long, during and after the life of Norman Mattoon Thomas. I just do not believe that Socialism can sustain itself in any way that allows our nation to benefit from the freedom that it is suppose to be a bastion of.

And just as much as I do not believe in Socialism, I equally believe that most Americans don’t either.

I believe as Norman Thomas did. That most “American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism”, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program”

Such is the case today.

We are witnessing a conversion of our democracy to socialism that will take years to undo all because we elected a socialist who got away by calling himself  a Democrat.

In that same speech, Norman Thomas went on to say “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

That was said 65 years ago yet today, it rings truer than ever.

The question is, when will Americans wake up and realize what Norman Mantoon Thomas realized. That political liberalism is socialism and when will they realize that socialism is futile.

Bookmark and Share




Socialism: You have two cows. You keep one and give one to your neighbor.

Communism: You have two cows. The government takes them both and provides you with milk.

Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes them and sells you the milk.

Bureaucracy: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, and then pours it down the drain.

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Democracy: You have two cows. Government taxes force you to sell them in order to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow which was a gift from your government.




Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    It was revealed the other day that sign makers were to become the most immediate beneficiaries of the recent historic stimulus package.

Unbeknownst to anyone who read through the thousands of pages tin he stimulus bill, the White House initiated the creation of a new emblem.


According to the President “We’re making it easier for Americans to see what projects are being funded with their money as part of our recovery. So in the weeks to come, the signs denoting these projects are going to bear the new emblem of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” Obama said. “These emblems are symbols of our commitment to you, the American people — a commitment to investing your tax dollars wisely, to put Americans to work doing the work that needs to be done. So when you see them on projects that your tax dollars made possible, let it be a reminder that our government — your government — is doing its part to put the economy back on the road of recovery.”


Think of it as the tag on a Christmas present designating who the gift is from. You.


There is no word as to how much the new symbol costs to make and how much it will cost to reproduce and display on the countless required projects expected of it.
But who cares?
Whatever the amount is, it is an amount that is insignificant compared to the spending legislated in the bill.


The new emblem representing the “spread the wealth” legislation is quite symbolic. The creation of the emblem is quite symbolic of how the stimulus package will work.

The stimulus package generates work provided by the government and once that work is completed, where will more work come from? Under this stimulus package the only assured way for their to be more work is by making government create it. That means more government spending.

Now never mind the fact that all this spending is not helping the deficit which the left has made one of the top issues to use against Republicans. Never mind the fact that the stimulus package does little to free up lending in the free market and does little to boost free enterprise in America. All of that is not suppose to matter because government spending is creating government jobs. But the problem is that government jobs do not sustain themselves, private sector jobs do.

The problem is that although sign makers with the right government contract will make money from the creation of the new emblem for the stimulus package but what will they do when all those signs have been made?ussa1

The free market will not be expanded by the growth of government and the work for more signs will not be increasing, unless of course it is for more government projects.

So this new emblem for projects funded by the new stimulus package is quite a good representation of all that the so called recovery act represents. It represents a short term action that will cost us more than it is worth in the long run. It represents an increase in government control and a decrease in the expansion of opportunity and the free markets that built America.

A much more accurate symbol for the stimulus package which I call the American Economic Socialization package would be the old hammer and sickle.

Bookmark and Share


A socialist, a capitalist and a communist agreed to meet.

The socialist was late.

“Excuse me for being late, I was standing in a queue for sausages.”

“And what is a queue?” the capitalist asked.

“And what is a sausage?” the communist asked.


Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    What has her majesty’s kingdom come to?

Today British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came before a joint session of Congress and declared honorary knighthood to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

ted-kennedyBeing a Kennedy has almost always been a magical thing. It is a get out of jail free card that exempts them from wrongdoing. Be it a Kennedy cousin who has killed a Connecticut neighbor, a Kennedy nephew who raped a Florida neighbor, a Kennedy relative in Congress caught driving drunk or Ted Kennedy’s swimming away from a date after plunging into icy cold waters in Hyannis port and then neglecting to tell anyone that he left her there, being a Kennedy is a great thing.

When it comes to Kennedy wrongdoing, cover-ups are expected and accepted. When it comes to Kennedy scandals it is again, both expected and accepted.

Now it is worthy of knighthood.

The sad fact is that the Kennedy clan has come along way since the days of President John F. Kennedy and New York Senator Robert Kennedy. But it has not progressed in quite such a good way. Kennedy’s have since then have done more harm than good.

We knew John and Robert had faults of their own, but we were able to respect John and Robert Kennedy, but Ted Kennedy is no John or Robert Kennedy.

John and Robert Kennedy had their lives taken. Ted Kennedy has taken lives.

Yet the monarchy of Great Britain has chosen to put more value in Ted Kennedy’s socialist agenda, than his crimes.

It is a shame but such is the world we live in.

God save the Queen.

Bookmark and Share

A woman interviews for a job with Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy: “You realize that you’ll have to travel a lot.”

Woman: “That’s OK.”

Kennedy: “And that to save money we’ll have to share a hotel room.”

Woman: “OK.”

Kennedy: “And on some nights we will be having sex.”

Woman: “That’s all right.”

Kennedy: “Do you have any questions?”

Woman: “Well, if we are having sex, I might get pregnant and I wonder what arrangements you’ve made for obstetrics insurance, maternity leave, etc.”

Kennedy: “Don’t worry; we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

1 Comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share     Just wondering.

Now that Democrats have gained full control of the federal government what happened to their wealth of human rights advocacy?

mask20chinese20flagRecently Secretary of State Clinton went out of her way to let China know that the United States will not let human rights concerns hinder our cooperation with China.

Now, I contend that liberal thinking is hypocrisy based but this recent Democrat commitment confirms it.

But beyond their hypocrisy is their insincerity. Republicans can not make any moves without being accused of human rights abuses and even when Republicans lead efforts that advance human rights, liberals deny credit and the ensuing results.

The fact that millions were freed from oppression and torture in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein meant nothing and liberals did nothing but accuse President Bush of waging a useless war. At the same time, they shunned him for not throwing us into civil war in Rwanda.

And what of Rwanda? Where is the liberal urgency to advance human rights there now that they are in charge.

Leadership certainly changes ones priorities, doesn’t it?

What caused Democrats to withdraw their concerns with human rights?

Could it be that achieving them through the political process is a lot harder to do than talking about them?

Or could it be that human rights are nothing more for liberals than a political tool to be used to pull at the heart strings of a compassionate electorate?

I am sure that the people of China are pleased with the new administration and our new Secretary of State. I am sure that the students who risked their lives to participate in protests at Tiananmen Square are glad to know that the worlds beacon of freedom is willing to sell them out for cheap sneakers.

Now I am not suggesting that the Bush administration advanced the cause of human rights in China with any great leaps or bounds but the liberal mentality of people in the Obama administration had them cursing George W. Bush for attending the Olympics in Beijing. Many of them wanted him to boycott the Olympics all together and prohibit our athletes from competing.

The uproar against our participation in the Beijing Olympics reached a fevered pitch during the summer of boycott2008, but now, in the winter of 2009, with the shoe of leadership on the other foot, the Obama administration came right out and said that human rights in China will have no bearing on our relationship and there is not a peep of protest offered by the left.

In the mean time the Chinese government continues to torture prisoners, deny citizens due process, suppress and torture women, limit speech, the media, independent organizing and freedom of association. All this is added to an undying commitment to suppressing religion which has led to the raping of Tibet that includes the actual raping of Tibetan women, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries and restrictions prohibiting the practice of their religion.

In the face of all this, Democrat leaders have been able to say that it doesn’t matter. If such a statement came out of a Republican administration, liberals would be tying the knots in nooses made to fit the neck of every member of the President’s cabinet.

So which is it? Do human rights really matter to liberals? Do they mean what they say or do they just say what it takes to look concerned?

Bookmark and Share

When Coca-Cola was first introduced to China, the company had some difficulty spelling the product’s name in Chinese, while keeping the same pronunciation (“ko-ka ko-la”) … the first attempt translated to “bite the wax tadpole.” Finally they arrived at something which translated to “may your mouth rejoice,” and now Coke is selling quite a bit better.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics