Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Stop the nonsense!

I've had it with the lame liberal argument that vouchers are bad because they take money away from the government schools.
Not true and it would be irrelevant if it were.
All vouchers do in Florida and most other states is afford low-income minority families the same educational opportunities that more affluent families have. Period.
Most families can take their children out of failing government schools where they are not getting an education and send them to private schools.
In fact, one out of every five government schoolteachers choose this option for their own children.
Vouchers go to low-income students in failing schools who are being cheated out of an education.
In most cases, struggling parents have to pay extra because the voucher does not pay the full cost, but they are willing to do so.
Is this money "taken away" from the school the child leaves?
Schools are paid a certain amount per child. So every child remaining in the school still would be funded.
Here's another crucial point the greedy union bosses want you to overlook.
Everyone pays for government schools, whether they have a child in them or not. This includes people who also are paying for their child to attend a private school.
Because vouchers are for less than the cost of the child attending a government schools, this is a benefit to taxpayers.
In short, vouchers are a winning proposition for everyone. Liberals should stop lying about them and start helping poor children get an education.

Friday, May 19, 2017

The Russian connection

Although it is a threat to the republic, the "Russian collusion" fantasy that libs currently are embracing has its humorous aspects.
Early in the New Deal, a delegation of President Roosevelt's vaunted Brain Trust went to Europe. They wanted to visit with Mussolini, whom they admired. He was busy and they went on to their main destination -- Russia.
They were mightily impressed with the work of Josef Stalin, the Russian Communist dictator who had murdered millions of Russia's citizens.
In their eyes, he had made the economy of his nation thrive.
When they returned, they urged Roosevelt to emulate the methods of Stalin and Mussolini. At first, Hitler impressed them, too, but eventually they decided his methods might be a bit excessive.
Roosevelt, a novice who had never earned a profit in the business his wealthy family left him, went on to try one heavy-handed scheme after another to combat the depression. Often the methods were at odds with one another: food was destroyed while people were queuing up in breadlines. Wages were kept high while millions were unemployed.
But the effects of the trade protectionism and poor monetary policy could not be overcome with the Russian-style command and control methods. In 1937, a second Depression occurred and the economy remained in the doldrums until the war brought employment and the victory brought about recovery. In the meantime, Roosevelt had abandoned many of his wacky schemes and the courts had eliminated others.
It is all set out in The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes. I've read a number of books about the New Deal. This is the best, being the most well researched and even handed.
There is no Russian collusion today. There was in the 1930s and it was brought about by a politician that liberals have elevated to sainthood.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

More for the asking

In refusing to attend the inauguration of Donald Trump, Democrats were merely following the tradition of their patron saint, Sir Thomas More.
More invented "Utopia," the mythical, and unattainable, state that they strive to bring about in America.
More was in good with the king until he refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn as queen.
Sadly to say, Henry VIII had More beheaded for the snub. (He later had Anne's head removed, too. Henry had a thing.)
Not saying American Democrats should undergo the same remedy, but it would be worth examining the utopian idea.
The Soviet Union, by the way, honored More for his novel since it essentially was communism -- although communism turned out to be the very antithesis of the ideal life of the citizens of More's Utopia.
(Utopia is a word derived from the Greek term for "no place.")
Everyone in Utopia is a farmer. The food they grow is stored and anyone can help himself from the supply. They had free hospitals, making it apparent why liberals are drawn to this fancy.
But they also had slavery, which might be a bit awkward for Democrats.
On the other hand it is ideal in one respect: there are no lawyers.
Wives are required to confess their sins to their husbands monthly and euthanasia is practiced, again a mixed blessing for liberals.
Private property did not exist and everyone got a free basic income, which leads us back to liberal Democrats.
Once again they are pushing a "universal basic income." Mental midget Robert Reich is for it, as are politicians in France.
Enjoy your trip on the Road to Utopia.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Why not America First?

Libs like to manipulate the language. Currently, they are trying to do so as part of their never-ending effort to smear and misrepresent the president.
President Trump has declared he would put America first.
Immediately, libs linked that to the isolationist movement in America before World War II began.
But that movement began at Yale University -- hardly a hotbed of conservatism.
Also, other allies in the isolationist or “non-interventionist” cause included American Socialist party leader Norman Thomas, liberal journalist Oswald Garrison Villard, and such progressive icons Charles Beard, John Dewey, Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, and Progressive party hero Robert La Follette, according to Jonah Goldberg.
Trump made it clear that he is not advocating non-involvement in world affairs although, strangely enough, he would be on the same page as the libs, who don't want the American military used anywhere for any reason.
He is saying that when it comes to immigration policy, economic policy, or anything else, he is going to consider what is best for the American people first, and only then how it might affect other nations, such as Mexico.
He is going to ban, at least temporarily, immigration from terrorist nations such as Syria and Iran.
Makes sense to me.
At one time a company called Sandia had a program that involved inviting people from all over the world, including those nations, to come to America, tour our nuclear facilities and learn how the security systems worked there. This always seemed insane to me and I pointed it out to one U.S. senator, who promised to look into it but did nothing.
Putting Americans first does not seem to me to be the wrong thing for the president of America to do.

Monday, November 21, 2016

What he leaves behind

Barack Obama became president because of the color of his skin. From the start, observant people were unconcerned about his race but suspect of his intentions, because of his background.
The tipoff was when he announced that he intended to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Why, people asked immediately, would anyone seek to fundamentally transform the greatest nation in history, one that has done more good for more people than any other, ever?
Dinesh D’Souza provided in the answer in his best selling book The Roots of Obama’s Rage, which was made into a movie. As in the Soviet Union, D’Souza’s actions put him in prison.
Obama, D'Souza explained, was the product of Obama’s communist parents, stepfather and mentors.
They believed, as did Obama, that the United States was too powerful and too prosperous.
In his two books, Obama made his intentions clear. (What kind of a narcissistic egomaniac writes two autobiographies before he reaches middle age and before he has accomplished anything in his life beyond being a “community organizer” (professional agitator)?
Other clues were that he sat in his church nodding while his pastor thundered “God damn America!” Another was when his wife revealed that she never had any regard for this nation until it elected her husband.
Although he spoke of lofty goals like world peace and stopping the alleged rise of the oceans, Obama clearly set out to make the United States less prosperous and less powerful.
While he did nothing toward his stated goals, he did make progress during his eight years toward his true goals.
By putting back from the world stage he allowed other interests to assume the power he relinquished. He kowtowed to those interests and made deals that were not in the best interests of this nation.
He constantly belittled the Christian and Jewish religions and praised the barbaric religion of islam, which is continuing a 1,400 year quest for domination of the world.
On the economic front, he seized control of a large segment of the economy – health care, vastly increasing its cost and the government’s control of it. He pursued policies, such as minimum wage increases and tremendous increases in regulations, that destroy jobs.
At the end of his stay in office, growth was at a record low pace and the national debt had doubled since the time he criticized his predecessor for the size of the debt. Although he pledged to right the economy during his first term, and stated that he should not be re-elected if he failed, he failed and ran again.
In short, he was a complete failure. Yet, he endorsed someone who pledged to continue his course and said the election would be a referendum on his policies.
They were repudiated.
As a practicing narcissist, Obama constantly obsesses over his legacy. Here it is: he will be what Charles Krauthammer called a “historical parenthesis” – the first person ever elected president who hated the country he governed and sought to lower its status in the world.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Liberals panic as local paper chooses Trump

Jacksonville's small but vocal left-wing community is having a communal meltdown today with the newspaper's endorsement of Donald Trump for president.
Liberals, who know everything, see it as evidence the paper is slipping into the slough of conservatism.
I know a bit about this. After 12 years as editorial page editor, the last editorial I ever wrote was the paper's endorsement of George W. Bush for re-election.
Here's what happened this time around: the owner of the paper made the decision. He is a conservative. It is his prerogative.
When Barack Obama ran against John McCain, the local publisher, a liberal, decided to endorse Obama without consulting the owner -- over the warnings of experienced people who understood that the owner preferred to call the shots in presidential elections.
So they wrote a syrupy editorial endorsing Obama because of his superior blackness. The next week, after a phone call from corporate headquarters, they wrote one explaining that they had reconsidered and had decided McCain was the better candidate -- making complete fools of themselves.
Today the left-wing newsroom editor is making a complete fool of himself by disavowing the paper's endorsement. If I were the owner, he would be fired.
Communist/socialist/liberal/progressives in Jacksonville are venting on social media that the paper has become conservative.
Despite today's endorsement, the paper is not conservative and hasn't been for about 10 years. Before that, it was conservative for about 150 years.
Like most newspapers, it suffers from a newsroom nearly full of nutty kids and aging libs, but the opinion section was solidly conservative -- like the majority of Jacksonville residents -- until the shift.
That shift happened because the owner of the chain that includes the local paper is losing interest in his business and has turned it over to his kids, who somehow turned out liberal. They have been hiring liberal editors and publishers.
The corporate ethos has been to allow local publishers to decide editorial policy -- except in presidential elections. I expect that will change after the owner dies.
In the meantime, fear not liberals. The paper will be as loony as you are except for one day every four years. Is that too much for your sensitive, tolerant psyches to endure?
And think about this: if you think it was a terrible day for the left wing in Jacksonville today, imagine what it will be like if Trump wins Tuesday and the nation is given a chance to recover from the eight years of misery and decline it has endured.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Choosing evil

I must be really stupid because I just can’t grasp the arguments some pretty smart conservatives are making to justify either voting for Hillary Clinton or not voting at all.
Let’s stipulate that these probably are the two worst candidates for president in history, and also that neither is officially a nominee, yet.
But if it happens, why would a conservative not do whatever is necessary to stop Hillary from winning?
One argument is that “the lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Well, yes. But that also means that the alternative is more evil.
Since one is going to win, wouldn’t the prudent move be to vote for the lesser evil and thus try to prevent the more evil from winning?
Aside from Clinton's meanness, total lack of honesty and far, far left philosophy, there is one argument that seals the deal for me, as far as choosing one of these two.
There is 100 percent chance that Clinton would nominate an ultra-liberal justice or justices for the Supreme Court.
Trump is a wild man but it appears that there is less than a 100 percent chance that he would do so.
Another unconvincing argument is that Trump’s candidacy will somehow cause the GOP to lose a majority In the Senate.
If that is going to happen it is already a done deal. His winning won’t change a vote that already has taken place. But he could still nominate a conservative justice and get it through a Democratic Senate. Democrats constantly make the argument that a president is entitled to have his nominee approved, and I don’t think they would dare leave a seat open for four years if Trump stuck to his guns.
The process is deeply flawed as shown by the fact that we have these two presumptive nominees. But that is no reason to drop out of voting.
Every vote cast for Trump negates one cast for Clinton.
The old saying is true: If you don’t vote, they will.