Finally. It's over. The Clinton Regime is done. We Conservatives endured 8 years of the liberal, military gutting, law enforcement hating, gun control loving, couldn't keep it in his pants, Clinton presidency. Then, we endured Hillary's progressive tenure in the U.S. Senate. Next, we endured her embarrassing, leftist foreign policy initiatives as Secretary of State. Lastly, we endured her stint as the Democratic nominee for president. Now, thank God, all of that is over.
Through all of it and unlike when things don't go The Lunatic Left's way, we conservatives didn't break and burn things, nor did we riot. Heck, we didn't even threaten to leave the country like a bunch of babies. We endured it and made the best of it.
Now, we only ask for one, simple thing - Hillary, please "Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away." So, on this post-2016 election edition of Music Monday, this one's dedicated to Hillary Clinton. It's Motley Crue with "Don't Go Away Mad (Just Go Away)" from their 1989 #1 record, Dr. Feelgood (click here).
Showing posts with label Liberal(s). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal(s). Show all posts
Monday, November 14, 2016
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Proceed With Caution
Today, the ones of us who voted for Trump are at a minimum relieved while some are thrilled and celebrating. If you supported Clinton, then you're probably a little down, maybe even pissed, but the one thing all of us can agree on is that we're glad it's over. For the first time in a long time, I won't have to empty my "BS" filter before going to bed tonight.
If you supported Trump, I want to encourage you to not get too excited just yet. He is just one man and try as he might, he cannot fix all that ails the country overnight. It will take time, and he will have to have help. Plus, there are other things to consider, too. For instance:
 |
| English: Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
- Exactly what are we getting with Trump? Are we getting the Trump who years ago was a liberal? You know, the one who was "pro-choice", supported some gun control, and contributed money to liberal politicians. Or, are we getting the Trump who campaigned for the presidency on much more conservative values? The answer is - we don't know. Only time will tell.
- Trump smacked the establishment around unmercifully, both Republicans and Democrats. Heck, some of the upper echelon Republicans didn't even support him as the party's presidential nominee. I even heard today where former President George W. Bush didn't even bother to vote for president. So, I'm wondering if the establishment in Congress will even work with Trump in fixing what ails us, which they caused, or if they will just make his life difficult.
- The Republicans now control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have absolute power over us, which we have given them, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will they limit themselves to the powers granted them by The Constitution, or will it be "anything goes"? Will they keep Trump in check, or will they set on their asses like they did with Obama and let him do whatever he wants? House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that Trump had been given a "mandate". When I heard that, shivers went up my spine. It's eerily similar to Lamar Alexander, the U.S. Senator from Tennessee, saying, "Elections have consequences" after Obama won the presidency in 2008. One party with this much power could prove to be very dangerous, folks. Contrary to what some may think, just because it's the Republicans, it doesn't mean they're saints. Some Republicans are just as low-down evil as some Democrats. I know from first-hand experience.
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN (emphasis added) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV).
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
2014 Tennessee Governors Race
Early voting for Tennessee's August Primaries begins this Friday, July 18. Bill Haslam is up for re-election as governor. I've made no secret that I am no fan of his in previous posts on this blog. A few months ago, I even posted a series of videos from a NewsChannel 5 Investigation into the wheelings, dealings, and crony capitalism within his administration.
Prior to his election in 2010, I said Haslam was not a conservative, despite his claims, but more of a liberal / progressive. He has proven me correct from his dislike of pro-gun legislation, to his disrespect for teachers, to the his latest big government, progressive handout program known as "The Tennessee Promise." Haslam needs to be defeated badly.
The problem is that the crop of candidates challenging him in 2014 is not very formidable, but I want to briefly highlight who they are. Today I'll cover the Republicans and the Democrats who are competing in their respective parties primaries. Later, prior to the general election, I will do a similar list that includes the Independent candidates. If you'd like to see the entire list of Tennessee gubernatorial candidates, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and other state office, it is available on the Tennessee Secretary of State's website by clicking here.
Republicans
As crazy as politics are today with incumbents being out of touch with every day people, a guy running just to save his pet kinda seems fitting. Maybe Rebekah should have been the one on the ballot. If she won, she could pardon her self.
Only in Tennessee. Wow.
 |
| English: Knoxville mayor and Tennessee GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam addressing supporters before the Highlands Town Hall Debate at Tennessee Tech University. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The problem is that the crop of candidates challenging him in 2014 is not very formidable, but I want to briefly highlight who they are. Today I'll cover the Republicans and the Democrats who are competing in their respective parties primaries. Later, prior to the general election, I will do a similar list that includes the Independent candidates. If you'd like to see the entire list of Tennessee gubernatorial candidates, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and other state office, it is available on the Tennessee Secretary of State's website by clicking here.
Republicans
- The incumbent Bill Haslam - a progressive in conservative clothing a.k.a. a wolf. Sheepdogs don't like wolves. So, I don't like Haslam. Did not vote for him in 2010. Will not vote for him in 2014, either.
- Donald Ray McFolin - Ran against Haslam as an Independent in 2010. Is a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam. Worked in graphic arts for 30+ years. Is currently an autism advocate motivated to run for governor in order to help kids with special needs. A commendable motivation, in my opinion.
- Basil Marceaux, Sr. - Ran against Haslam in 2010 gubernatorial Republican Primary. Has ran for Tennessee governor on multiple occasions, ran for Tennessee State Senate and the U.S. Senate, too, along with several other offices. Basil is an interesting guy. Visit his website to learn more www.BasilMarceaux.com.
- Mark "Coonrippy" Brown - Brown's run for governor is due to his love for his pet racooon, Rebekah.
Rebekah was captured by the TWRA (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency) over a year ago. Brown has been unsuccessful in his attempts to get his pet back. So, he's running for governor in order to free Rebekah. What's not to like about guy and his raccoon? Heck, I might just have to vote for the guy (read Politico article).Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
- Charles V. "Charlie" Brown - no substantial information available
- Kennedy Spellman Johnson - no substantial information available
- William H. "John" McKamey - retired school teacher. Served as county commissioner and Mayor of Sullivan County. On his website, it states he supports medical marijuana. An interview published on www.Knoxnews.com shows that he supports homosexual marriage.
- Ron Noonan - only information found says he wants to decriminalize misdemeanors and move regulation of public education from the federal to the state governments
As crazy as politics are today with incumbents being out of touch with every day people, a guy running just to save his pet kinda seems fitting. Maybe Rebekah should have been the one on the ballot. If she won, she could pardon her self.
Only in Tennessee. Wow.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Nashville = Taxville
Recently, I ran across an article listing the top ten U.S. cities with the highest and lowest traveler tax rates. I was a little surprised at what I learned. I think you will be, too. I break it down for ya below.
The article was a summary of the annual study conducted by the GBTA Foundation (Global Business Traveler Association Foundation) and can be found on their website, www.gbta.org by clicking here. The article is titled "GBTA Reveals Best and Worst Travel Taxes in Top 50 U.S. Destinations."
The study looked at the total amount of daily taxes paid by travelers to various U.S. cities. The amount includes both general sales taxes and discriminatory travel taxes. Discriminatory travel taxes are taxes on things that specifically target travelers, such as rental cars, hotels, and restaurant meals. These discriminatory travel taxes are in addition to the sales tax travelers pay on the same items.
Below, I have listed, by ranking, the top ten U.S. cities, according to the article, with the highest total traveler taxes per day along with the total dollar amount of taxes incurred each day :
Second, the same www.USAToday.com article, showed that Tennessee has the 3rd lowest overall, out of 50 states, tax burden in the country. However, Nashville, TN has the 9th overall highest daily tax burden upon travelers of any city in the country !
Now, let's break these numbers down a little further. (Sorry, the accountant in me can't help it.) For simplicity's sake, let's round the daily total traveler tax burdens for Nashville, TN and Orange County, Burbank, and Ontario in California. Nashville's becomes $34, Orange County's $23, and Burbank's and Ontario's $24. Then, let's look at some percentages.
Let's say you originally planned to travel to Orange County, CA, but changed your mind and decided to go to Nashville, TN instead. Each day of your trip you would pay 47.8% more in taxes than if you had kept your original plans and gone to Orange County, CA [(34-23) / 23 = .478 x 100 = 47.8%]. Also, if you changed your plans from going to Burbank, CA or Ontario, CA and went to Nashville, TN instead, you would pay 41.7% more in taxes per day [(34-24) / 24 = .417 x 100 = 41.7%]. WOW !! Who would have thought that traveler taxes would be over 40% higher in Nashville, TN than in a big city in tax happy, Progressive California ?
These statistics seem backwards, right ? I thought so, too, until I remembered the never-ending string of Progressive / Liberal Nashville Mayors. Ever since I moved into the area, Nashville's voters have insisted on electing one "Big Gubmint" lovin', tax and spend, go-into-debt Democrat after another. These Mayors have paid for project after project with more taxes on the backs of taxpayers.
First, there was "Uncle Phil" Bredesen. In my opinion, his regime could be characterized as the most pro-corporate welfare and tax increase-loving administration the city has ever known. It built a NHL hockey arena and brought in the Nashville Predators to play in it. Next, Bud "You Can Take Me At My Word" Adams and his then Houston "Loser" Oilers, now Tennessee "Thug" Titans, were recruited to Nashville. The Bredesen Regime then builds the team the nice, new stadium Bud's been wanting at a nice, fat price tag to Nashville taxpayers of over $300 Million. The NHL and NFL both came to Nashville via Bredesen and on the back of Nashville taxpayers. All to the tune of about $400 Million. Oh, and don't get me started on Uncle Phil's other big corporate welfare project - Dell Computers.
During the Bredesen Mayoral Regime, Nashville property taxes went up, up, up to pay for the Titans and Predators. Some will tell you, "No, that's not so." Well, it is so. It was one of the reasons I moved out of Davidson Co. I'm not paying for playpens for a bunch of spoiled brats. In my opinion, they should pay for it themselves. While Nashville's taxpayers were paying for professional sports teams, many other important needs of the city's citizens, such as its schools, went without.
Next up - Bill Purcell. I kinda felt sorry for him. Now, in his defense, he was the guy stuck trying to manage all the debt Bredesen's Regime piled on the city. It seemed that besides making budget cut after budget cut each year of his tenure, and reading books to the kids, Purcell spent most of his time as Nashville Mayor treading water trying to survive the debt avalanche inherited from the Bredesen Regime. It was so bad the poor guy got outta Dodge as soon as his 2nd term was up to go to Harvard and teach or something. I mean, that dude got WAAAYY out of Dodge. Can't say that I blame him. I will give Purcell credit for one thing, though - he fought his tail off opposing the new Nashville Convention Center and stopped it dead in its tracks. Unfortunately for Nashville, though, next up as Mayor was Karl "Let's Spend Some Money" Dean.
Dean is the current Nashville Mayor, and if you are an elected official wanting to learn how to spend some money, Dean is the guy to learn from. He came into office determined to build the new convention center. I thought the city's debt piled up during Bredesen's Regime, but I hadn't seen nothing, yet. Bredesen was just the warmup for the headliner, Dean. The city went in debt nearly $400 Million on the Pred-a-Thugs and Titan Thugs deals combined during the Bredesen years, but Dean topped that in one deal. The new "Music City Center" has a price tag of about $600 Million. Furthermore, according to an article titled "Nashville Gambles On Lure of New Convention Center" on www.NYTimes.com, the city is also fronting around $125 Million toward the new Omni hotel near the new convention center.
Dean is the king of Nashville's Mayors when it comes to spending money and racking up debt. He's over the $700 Million mark with the Music City Center and Omni Hotel. Now, ... that's Progressive.
The question is - how does Dean and the city plan to pay all this massive amount of debt for the new convention center ? Quite simply, they plan to do so with even more taxes on tourists. Yes, I said more. Perhaps they're not happy with that #9 ranking above. According to an article on http://skift.com/ titled "Nashville's New Convention Center Sets Up Big Challenge for Memphis", the Music City Center debt will be paid off with :
All of these taxes above will be on top of all the taxes that travelers to the city are already paying. So, that $34.13 per day total travel taxes figure noted above can only go in one direction - up.
Here's the good news, though, Nashville - if that total travel tax burden per day goes up just $.71, and with the new taxes above, that's pretty much a certainty, your city will vault all the way into 3rd place, behind only the Progressive Metropolis' of Chicago, IL and New York City among U.S. cities that tax travelers the most. Yippeeeee !
Additionally, if the total tax burden on travelers goes up just $6.19 per day, and you've got a real good shot at achieving that mark, too, Nashville would jump all the way into 1st Place as the city which taxes travelers the most in the U.S. Nashville may not have a Super Bowl Trophy or a Stanley Cup, but it would become "Taxville U.S.A." As far as travelers are concerned, Nashville's motto could then be "Send 'Em and We'll Tax 'Em." Or, "Just Tax 'Em." I think I like the latter one better. It would fit on hats and t-shirts easier.
The best thing is that the city would finally be the best at something, and that's been a long time coming. "Taxville U.S.A." has had some leaders that really knew how to show the city's visitors some "Southern hospitality."
Just Tax 'Em.
The article was a summary of the annual study conducted by the GBTA Foundation (Global Business Traveler Association Foundation) and can be found on their website, www.gbta.org by clicking here. The article is titled "GBTA Reveals Best and Worst Travel Taxes in Top 50 U.S. Destinations."
 |
| Geographic center of the contiguous United States is located in United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Below, I have listed, by ranking, the top ten U.S. cities, according to the article, with the highest total traveler taxes per day along with the total dollar amount of taxes incurred each day :
- Chicago, IL - $40.31
- New York, NY - $37.98
- Boston, MA - $34.83
- Kansas City, MO - $34.58
- Seattle, WA - $34.43
- Minneapolis, MN - $34.32
- Cleveland, OH - $34.22
- Indianapolis, IN - $34.19
- Nashville, TN - $34.13
- Houston, TX - $33.51
- Ft. Lauderdale, FL - $22.21
- Ft. Myers, FL - $22.21
- West Palm Beach, FL - $22.21
- Detroit, MI - $22.37
- Portland, OR - $22.45
- Orange County, CA - $22.79
- Burbank, CA - $23.74
- Ontario, CA - $24.08
- Honolulu, HI - $24.38
- Orlando, FL - $24.50
 |
| Nashville, TN - The raw satellite imagery shown in these images was obtain from NASA and/or the US Geological Survey. Post-processing and production by http://www.terraprints.com (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Now, let's break these numbers down a little further. (Sorry, the accountant in me can't help it.) For simplicity's sake, let's round the daily total traveler tax burdens for Nashville, TN and Orange County, Burbank, and Ontario in California. Nashville's becomes $34, Orange County's $23, and Burbank's and Ontario's $24. Then, let's look at some percentages.
Let's say you originally planned to travel to Orange County, CA, but changed your mind and decided to go to Nashville, TN instead. Each day of your trip you would pay 47.8% more in taxes than if you had kept your original plans and gone to Orange County, CA [(34-23) / 23 = .478 x 100 = 47.8%]. Also, if you changed your plans from going to Burbank, CA or Ontario, CA and went to Nashville, TN instead, you would pay 41.7% more in taxes per day [(34-24) / 24 = .417 x 100 = 41.7%]. WOW !! Who would have thought that traveler taxes would be over 40% higher in Nashville, TN than in a big city in tax happy, Progressive California ?
These statistics seem backwards, right ? I thought so, too, until I remembered the never-ending string of Progressive / Liberal Nashville Mayors. Ever since I moved into the area, Nashville's voters have insisted on electing one "Big Gubmint" lovin', tax and spend, go-into-debt Democrat after another. These Mayors have paid for project after project with more taxes on the backs of taxpayers.
First, there was "Uncle Phil" Bredesen. In my opinion, his regime could be characterized as the most pro-corporate welfare and tax increase-loving administration the city has ever known. It built a NHL hockey arena and brought in the Nashville Predators to play in it. Next, Bud "You Can Take Me At My Word" Adams and his then Houston "Loser" Oilers, now Tennessee "Thug" Titans, were recruited to Nashville. The Bredesen Regime then builds the team the nice, new stadium Bud's been wanting at a nice, fat price tag to Nashville taxpayers of over $300 Million. The NHL and NFL both came to Nashville via Bredesen and on the back of Nashville taxpayers. All to the tune of about $400 Million. Oh, and don't get me started on Uncle Phil's other big corporate welfare project - Dell Computers.
During the Bredesen Mayoral Regime, Nashville property taxes went up, up, up to pay for the Titans and Predators. Some will tell you, "No, that's not so." Well, it is so. It was one of the reasons I moved out of Davidson Co. I'm not paying for playpens for a bunch of spoiled brats. In my opinion, they should pay for it themselves. While Nashville's taxpayers were paying for professional sports teams, many other important needs of the city's citizens, such as its schools, went without.
Next up - Bill Purcell. I kinda felt sorry for him. Now, in his defense, he was the guy stuck trying to manage all the debt Bredesen's Regime piled on the city. It seemed that besides making budget cut after budget cut each year of his tenure, and reading books to the kids, Purcell spent most of his time as Nashville Mayor treading water trying to survive the debt avalanche inherited from the Bredesen Regime. It was so bad the poor guy got outta Dodge as soon as his 2nd term was up to go to Harvard and teach or something. I mean, that dude got WAAAYY out of Dodge. Can't say that I blame him. I will give Purcell credit for one thing, though - he fought his tail off opposing the new Nashville Convention Center and stopped it dead in its tracks. Unfortunately for Nashville, though, next up as Mayor was Karl "Let's Spend Some Money" Dean.
 |
| English: Construction progress of Music City Center in Nashville (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Dean is the king of Nashville's Mayors when it comes to spending money and racking up debt. He's over the $700 Million mark with the Music City Center and Omni Hotel. Now, ... that's Progressive.
The question is - how does Dean and the city plan to pay all this massive amount of debt for the new convention center ? Quite simply, they plan to do so with even more taxes on tourists. Yes, I said more. Perhaps they're not happy with that #9 ranking above. According to an article on http://skift.com/ titled "Nashville's New Convention Center Sets Up Big Challenge for Memphis", the Music City Center debt will be paid off with :
- half of the city's current hotel / motel tax, plus
- an extra $2 per night / per room hotel motel tax, plus
- a 1% rental car surcharge (tax), plus
- a $2 tax every time as bus, taxi, or other commercial vehicle leaves the airport, plus
- all sales taxes within a zone around the building, and
- ALL sales tax collected at both the hotel and new convention center.
All of these taxes above will be on top of all the taxes that travelers to the city are already paying. So, that $34.13 per day total travel taxes figure noted above can only go in one direction - up.
Here's the good news, though, Nashville - if that total travel tax burden per day goes up just $.71, and with the new taxes above, that's pretty much a certainty, your city will vault all the way into 3rd place, behind only the Progressive Metropolis' of Chicago, IL and New York City among U.S. cities that tax travelers the most. Yippeeeee !
Additionally, if the total tax burden on travelers goes up just $6.19 per day, and you've got a real good shot at achieving that mark, too, Nashville would jump all the way into 1st Place as the city which taxes travelers the most in the U.S. Nashville may not have a Super Bowl Trophy or a Stanley Cup, but it would become "Taxville U.S.A." As far as travelers are concerned, Nashville's motto could then be "Send 'Em and We'll Tax 'Em." Or, "Just Tax 'Em." I think I like the latter one better. It would fit on hats and t-shirts easier.
The best thing is that the city would finally be the best at something, and that's been a long time coming. "Taxville U.S.A." has had some leaders that really knew how to show the city's visitors some "Southern hospitality."
Just Tax 'Em.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Do As I Say, Not As I Do
A couple of days ago, I heard a news report stating that former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, had recently bought an AR15. Since the tragic shooting incident in which the Congresswoman and a dozen others were wounded and six were killed, both her and her husband have been outspoken proponents of the need for more gun control, including a ban on so-called "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines.
Therefore, Kelly's purchase of the AR15 seems hypocritical. When asked about it, he claimed he bought the rifle to "make a point about background checks" and will turn the rifle over to police. My question is what point is he trying to make ? Does he have a criminal background that would preclude him from purchasing a gun legally and wanted to see he would get caught ? Has he been convicted of domestic violence or had a restraining order issued against him and wanted to test the NICS system ? What's the deal ? I don't get it.
Oh, by the way, one more thing - I saw where Kelly recently purchased a .45 caliber pistol, too. However, he says he has no plans to turn it over to police, like the AR15. He's keeping it.
Hmmm. Keeping it, huh ?
Personally, my opinion is that this is another example of liberal Democrat logic telling the rest of us to "do as I say, not as I do."
 |
| English: United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords at her desk. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Oh, by the way, one more thing - I saw where Kelly recently purchased a .45 caliber pistol, too. However, he says he has no plans to turn it over to police, like the AR15. He's keeping it.
Hmmm. Keeping it, huh ?
Personally, my opinion is that this is another example of liberal Democrat logic telling the rest of us to "do as I say, not as I do."
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Taking A Positive Stand
I am a football fan. I love the game. As a Pittsburgh Steelers fan, I watch every one of their games that I can. As a Florida State Seminoles fan, I likewise watch every one of their games that I can. I am glad that they won the ACC Championship and are going to the Orange Bowl. Both teams can make me cheer, make me mad, and drive me crazy - but, that's football. Florida State is a good example of the "drive me crazy" part. Their season will be remembered for what could have been. Fewer turnovers against North Carolina State and Florida would have resulted in victories in both of those games. Then, they, instead of Alabama, would be 12-0 and playing Notre Dame for the National Championship. But, I digress.
I was saddened to hear about the shocking tragedy that the Kansas City Chiefs football family endured last week. I can't imagine the emotions the team endured after learning that their teammate, linebacker Jovan Belcher, shot and killed his girlfriend, and then turned the gun on himself at Arrowhead Stadium. They persevered, though, and won their game in Arrowhead Stadium the following day against the Carolina Panthers. The victory was likely the best therapy the team could have received. I'm happy for them.
One thing that never ceases to piss me off is when people exploit such a tragedy for their own gain. Oftentimes, we see politicians and other talking heads do it to score political points or to spew political propaganda. Unfortunately, it happened with this tragedy, too. However, in this instance the exploitation came from a surprise source - NBC Sunday Night football. During Sunday night's game between the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles, NBC broadcaster Bob Costas decided to blame guns for the Belcher tragedy and went on to quote, and agree with, another anti-gunner who said, "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today." If you did not watch the game and see Costas' comments, the video is embedded below or can be watched by clicking here.
The ones of you that have been reading The Sheepdog's blog for awhile know that I like guns as much as football. You also know that, even before I say so, I completely disagree with Costas. I would like to know how he came to the conclusion that this would not have happened if the gun is taken out of the equation ? Doesn't it stand to reason that Belcher could have used some other weapon, if he "didn't possess a gun" ? If Costas can guarantee with 100% certainty that his hypothesis is correct, then I want to get a recommendation from him on which PowerBall numbers to play at the next drawing. The fact is that no one knows for sure that removing the gun from the equation would have prevented this tragedy. No one.
We do know, though, that this is the same argument the liberals and anti-gunners have been using for years. Its the old "guns kill people" argument. They used it after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' shooting, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and for years before any of those tragic events. The ones of us with at least a speck of common sense know that his argument is bogus. A gun is completely harmless until a human picks it up, puts bullets in it, and then aims it at something and squeezes the trigger. A gun is basically a paperweight until it receives some human interaction. People are killed in car accidents, too. Should we get rid of cars and walk or ride horses everywhere we go ?
The anti-gunners who use this argument over and over again ignore the positive aspects of firearms to do so. People use firearms for hunting to provide food for their families and others. Statistics show that annually firearms are used 2 million times for self-defense. Most of those times a shot is not even fired, because the mere presence of a firearm is enough to send a thug fleeing. In other words, 2 million times a year, guns actually save lives and injuries by helping people prevent muggings, rapes, murders, and other crimes. Next time you hear someone spewing anti-gun propaganda, take a moment to educate them on the 2 million incidents mentioned above.
Another problem I have with Costas' gibberish is the fact that he, or NBC, or both chose to make their political statement during a football game. Americans, myself included, enjoy football for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's to follow our team. Sometimes it's just because we love the game and watch whether our team is playing or not. On some occasions we watch a game just to get away. It might be an escape from our jobs, to get a break from the kids, or for some alone time. For whatever reason we're watching, the last thing we want shoved down our throats is politics. So, shut up and let us watch the game !!
Sunday night's incident reminds me of a U2 concert that I attended in July 2011 at Vanderbilt University's football stadium. I like U2's music but had never seen them in concert. A friend got some tickets and invited me and a couple of other guys to go. The concert was going good. Stage show was good. Music was good. Then, U2 decided to dabble in politics. They began playing one of their classics, "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Very quickly I realized something was different. Instead of being about the conflict in Ireland, as it was originally written, they were now performing it about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict instead. Worse yet, the images on the jumbotron made it very clear that U2 supported the Palestinians !! Pissed does not even touch how I felt. The puzzling part about it was that 3 of the 4 members of U2 profess to be Christians. So, why are they not supporting Israel ? Maybe they don't read the same Bible I do. Mine is very clear. In Genesis 12:3, God says to Abraham regarding the Israelites, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee." I wanted to leave the concert, but the other guys were enjoying it, and I didn't want to ruin it for them. Plus, one of them had driven, so I was kinda stuck. However, that will be the last U2 concert I will attend.
For those of you who enjoy my Music Monday's, this is also the reason U2 hasn't appeared again. I played them once before this concert, but not since. They will not appear again. Just like with football, when I'm enjoying a rock 'n show, I want to see what I came for - music and a show, not freakin' politics. A concert, like football, is a type of escape from the rat-race. Don't ruin it.
I saw today where Costas has issued a half-assed (sorry) apology in regards to his commentary Sunday night. In it, he said he supports gun ownership but then continued his anti-gun monologue by asking why we need semi-autos ? And, what are they good for anyway ? I'm not surprised, though. He does work for the NBC Network, which I "affectionately" refer to as the Nothing But Clinton Network. We all know how the Clintons feel about gun ownership.
His "apology" shows his complete ignorance of firearms. Thousands of Americans have semi-auto pistols in their homes and carry them for self-defense purposes. Others, me included, use semi-autos for hunting. Mr. Costas, I hope this answers your questions. May I also add that in regards to semi-autos used for defensive purposes that many of the thugs walking our streets carry semi-auto pistols. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that in order to properly defend ourselves and our families, law-abiding Americans should be at least as well-equipped as the "predators" are ? Just sayin'.
As I begin to wrap up this article, I have a proposal for my fellow gun owners. I'm sure everyone remembers how the left usually stages a "protest." Generally, it's obstructionist in nature. Think about the sit-ins of the '60s and '70s. More recently, the occupiers obstructed things, too, by taking over various pieces of public property to pitch their tents, use drugs, engage in illicit sexual activity, and even defecate on the American flag. In the last few weeks, unions and other groups have blocked and shutdown ports on the west coast in order to get their way. That's the way the left attempts to get their point across. However, gun owners are conservatives. Conservatives do things the right way - positively in a non-obstructive fashion. My proposal follows.
For this Sunday night's game, December 9, 2012, on NBC between the Green Bay Packers and the Detroit Lions, I am proposing a "Gun In." Get it - "Gun In" vs. "Sit In." Anyway, I'm sure you are asking, "Sheepdog, what the heck is a "Gun In" ? Well, there is two parts to it. First, we will boycott the football game. Yes, no football Sunday night. Get your fill during the day. That goes for you Cheeseheads, too. Second, during the time the game is on, which would be from 8-11 PM EST (7-10 PM CST) do something gun related. For instance :
Some may argue that my proposal shows an "insensitivity" to the tragedies of gun violence. I would argue it does not. My heart aches every time I hear about another shooting. However, I know that such incidents are not because of a gun problem, they are because of a moral and spiritual problem within our society. If people want to kill and maim each other, they will find a way to do so whether a gun is available or not. The thing to remember is that as many as 2 million such tragedies are prevented each year because a gun was present at the time someone could have become a victim. Plus, my proposal causes no problems for anyone but NBC and their ratings and will actually "stimulate the economy" at a time when it needs stimulating. Better yet is the fact that it won't cost taxpayers a penny.
I hope gun owners and other conservatives will stand together Sunday night and participate in The Sheepdog's Gun In. One week of millions of gun owners not watching NBC's Sunday Night Football game will send the message. Their ratings will drop and advertisers will be unhappy. The best part will be that the left will go nuts as ammo, gun, and gun accessory sales soar. Gun stores across the country will boom, and the left will go nuts even more !! It'll be awesome.
Please join me in taking a positive stand.
Source - www.TheBlaze.com article titled "NBC's Bob Costas Interrupts Sunday Night Football With Gun Control Lecture"
 |
| English: Exterior of Arrowhead Stadium in July 2010, after the renovations were completed and unveiled. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
One thing that never ceases to piss me off is when people exploit such a tragedy for their own gain. Oftentimes, we see politicians and other talking heads do it to score political points or to spew political propaganda. Unfortunately, it happened with this tragedy, too. However, in this instance the exploitation came from a surprise source - NBC Sunday Night football. During Sunday night's game between the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles, NBC broadcaster Bob Costas decided to blame guns for the Belcher tragedy and went on to quote, and agree with, another anti-gunner who said, "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today." If you did not watch the game and see Costas' comments, the video is embedded below or can be watched by clicking here.
The ones of you that have been reading The Sheepdog's blog for awhile know that I like guns as much as football. You also know that, even before I say so, I completely disagree with Costas. I would like to know how he came to the conclusion that this would not have happened if the gun is taken out of the equation ? Doesn't it stand to reason that Belcher could have used some other weapon, if he "didn't possess a gun" ? If Costas can guarantee with 100% certainty that his hypothesis is correct, then I want to get a recommendation from him on which PowerBall numbers to play at the next drawing. The fact is that no one knows for sure that removing the gun from the equation would have prevented this tragedy. No one.
We do know, though, that this is the same argument the liberals and anti-gunners have been using for years. Its the old "guns kill people" argument. They used it after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' shooting, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and for years before any of those tragic events. The ones of us with at least a speck of common sense know that his argument is bogus. A gun is completely harmless until a human picks it up, puts bullets in it, and then aims it at something and squeezes the trigger. A gun is basically a paperweight until it receives some human interaction. People are killed in car accidents, too. Should we get rid of cars and walk or ride horses everywhere we go ?
The anti-gunners who use this argument over and over again ignore the positive aspects of firearms to do so. People use firearms for hunting to provide food for their families and others. Statistics show that annually firearms are used 2 million times for self-defense. Most of those times a shot is not even fired, because the mere presence of a firearm is enough to send a thug fleeing. In other words, 2 million times a year, guns actually save lives and injuries by helping people prevent muggings, rapes, murders, and other crimes. Next time you hear someone spewing anti-gun propaganda, take a moment to educate them on the 2 million incidents mentioned above.
 |
| Image via CrunchBase |
Sunday night's incident reminds me of a U2 concert that I attended in July 2011 at Vanderbilt University's football stadium. I like U2's music but had never seen them in concert. A friend got some tickets and invited me and a couple of other guys to go. The concert was going good. Stage show was good. Music was good. Then, U2 decided to dabble in politics. They began playing one of their classics, "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Very quickly I realized something was different. Instead of being about the conflict in Ireland, as it was originally written, they were now performing it about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict instead. Worse yet, the images on the jumbotron made it very clear that U2 supported the Palestinians !! Pissed does not even touch how I felt. The puzzling part about it was that 3 of the 4 members of U2 profess to be Christians. So, why are they not supporting Israel ? Maybe they don't read the same Bible I do. Mine is very clear. In Genesis 12:3, God says to Abraham regarding the Israelites, "I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee." I wanted to leave the concert, but the other guys were enjoying it, and I didn't want to ruin it for them. Plus, one of them had driven, so I was kinda stuck. However, that will be the last U2 concert I will attend.
For those of you who enjoy my Music Monday's, this is also the reason U2 hasn't appeared again. I played them once before this concert, but not since. They will not appear again. Just like with football, when I'm enjoying a rock 'n show, I want to see what I came for - music and a show, not freakin' politics. A concert, like football, is a type of escape from the rat-race. Don't ruin it.
I saw today where Costas has issued a half-assed (sorry) apology in regards to his commentary Sunday night. In it, he said he supports gun ownership but then continued his anti-gun monologue by asking why we need semi-autos ? And, what are they good for anyway ? I'm not surprised, though. He does work for the NBC Network, which I "affectionately" refer to as the Nothing But Clinton Network. We all know how the Clintons feel about gun ownership.
His "apology" shows his complete ignorance of firearms. Thousands of Americans have semi-auto pistols in their homes and carry them for self-defense purposes. Others, me included, use semi-autos for hunting. Mr. Costas, I hope this answers your questions. May I also add that in regards to semi-autos used for defensive purposes that many of the thugs walking our streets carry semi-auto pistols. Therefore, doesn't it stand to reason that in order to properly defend ourselves and our families, law-abiding Americans should be at least as well-equipped as the "predators" are ? Just sayin'.
As I begin to wrap up this article, I have a proposal for my fellow gun owners. I'm sure everyone remembers how the left usually stages a "protest." Generally, it's obstructionist in nature. Think about the sit-ins of the '60s and '70s. More recently, the occupiers obstructed things, too, by taking over various pieces of public property to pitch their tents, use drugs, engage in illicit sexual activity, and even defecate on the American flag. In the last few weeks, unions and other groups have blocked and shutdown ports on the west coast in order to get their way. That's the way the left attempts to get their point across. However, gun owners are conservatives. Conservatives do things the right way - positively in a non-obstructive fashion. My proposal follows.
 |
| NBC Sunday Night Football logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
- If there is a gun range near you that's open during that time, whether indoors or outdoors, go shooting.
- If you have guns that need cleaning or lubing, do it then.
- If you have recently purchased a new accessory, such as a scope, sight, laser, or grip, for your favorite gun, install it then.
- Get family or friends together and do 1,2, or 3 together.
- If your local gun store is open during this time, go shopping. Pick up some ammo, a new accessory, or go ahead and buy that new gun you've been thinking about. If they're not open, go visit Gander Mountain, Academy Sports, etc. and do your shopping there.
- If you like the shopping idea in #5, but there's no store convenient to you, do it online. Or, if there is a store convenient, but you'd just rather shop online, that's cool - just do it.
Some may argue that my proposal shows an "insensitivity" to the tragedies of gun violence. I would argue it does not. My heart aches every time I hear about another shooting. However, I know that such incidents are not because of a gun problem, they are because of a moral and spiritual problem within our society. If people want to kill and maim each other, they will find a way to do so whether a gun is available or not. The thing to remember is that as many as 2 million such tragedies are prevented each year because a gun was present at the time someone could have become a victim. Plus, my proposal causes no problems for anyone but NBC and their ratings and will actually "stimulate the economy" at a time when it needs stimulating. Better yet is the fact that it won't cost taxpayers a penny.
I hope gun owners and other conservatives will stand together Sunday night and participate in The Sheepdog's Gun In. One week of millions of gun owners not watching NBC's Sunday Night Football game will send the message. Their ratings will drop and advertisers will be unhappy. The best part will be that the left will go nuts as ammo, gun, and gun accessory sales soar. Gun stores across the country will boom, and the left will go nuts even more !! It'll be awesome.
Please join me in taking a positive stand.
Source - www.TheBlaze.com article titled "NBC's Bob Costas Interrupts Sunday Night Football With Gun Control Lecture"
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Is Obama To Blame ?
With 2012 being a presidential election year, people are once again clamoring that "it is the most important election in the country's history." Is it ? We hear the same thing every four years, and we could argue until we are blue in the face whether or not it's true. For the last four years, we've heard Obama blame all the country's ills on former President Bush. We heard the Democrats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives blame everything on the Republicans. We've then heard the Republicans turn around and blame it all on the Democrats. It's been politics at its finest, or its worst, depending on how you want to look at it and which side of the aisle you're on. The question is, though, whose fault is it ... really ? I'm gonna give my opinion on that question below.
 |
| Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Furthermore, in prior posts, I've also made it clear that I'm no fan of Mitt Romney, either. In many ways he is a big government Liberal / Progressive just like Obama. Additionally, he has a habit of flip-flopping on issues. In fact, he flip-flopped on each of the following issues just before or right around the time he got presidential aspirations. They include :
- gun control - Romney went from anti-gun to pro-gun. As Massachusetts governor, he signed into law some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, including a permanent "assault weapons" ban.
- abortion - Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life.
- taxes - as Massachusetts governor he signed into law one tax increase after another. Now, while running for president, he wants lower taxes.
Additionally, while Massachusetts governor, Romney initiated, supported, and signed into law the state's version of ObamaCare. In fact, ObamaCare was modeled after RomneyCare. Romney has stated, while campaigning for president, that he oppposes, and would work to repeal, ObamaCare, but yet he stands by the Massachusetts version of it. His reasoning is that socialized medicine is o.k. on the state level but not on the federal. Say what ?
 |
| Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2008 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
As for the blame game that's been going around - Obama at Bush, Congressional Democrats at Congressional Republicans and vice versa - it's time for it to stop. In my opinion, there is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, Bush should get some of it as his administration was the bailout "initiator." The blame for the housing meltdown and current recession can be laid on Bush, Obama, and presidents going all the way back to Jimmy Carter and their applicable Congresses **. During Carter's administration, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed into law, and signed by Carter, forcing banks to give home loans to people with poor credit. No Congress or presidential administration afterwards made an effort to stop this government overreach. Therefore, they are all responsible for millions of Americans currently being out of work and losing their homes and businesses. Yes, all of them. The Community Reinvestment Act should never have became law. Never.
** During the rest of this article, any time you see the term "Congress," I am referring to the entire U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, all 535 members, combined.
As for Obama, let's take a quick look at some of his first term "accomplishments." They include :
- ObamaCare is now the law of the land.
- His administration has refused to allow the expansion of domestic oil drilling, contributing to higher gas prices.
- The Patriot Act has been re-authorized, and even expanded infringing on Americans privacy even more.
- He has hired 30+ czars to help implement his agenda.
- The federal debt is now over $16 Trillion.
- He has appointed two ultra-Liberal Supreme Court Justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
The country's founders set up our system of governance with a Constitutional implemented system of checks and balances. Each branch (executive, legislative, and judicial) of the federal government is set up to keep the others in check, so that none of them become too powerful and get out of control. Each branch is specifically delegated certain roles and powers that MUST be followed. The problem is that the three branches aren't following their Constitutional duties anymore, and the biggest culprit is Congress.
Yes, you heard me. Most of the blame for the country's problems can be placed on Congress. For instance, think about Obama's "accomplishments" above and consider that :
- Congress could have shot down ObamaCare.
- Congress could have pushed domestic oil-drilling forward, whether Obama wanted it or not.
- Congress could have killed The Patriot Act and its overreach into Americans' privacy.
- Congress could have said, "No czars."
- Congress could have cut spending, but they've even refused to pass a budget for the last several years.
- Lastly, Congress could have voted down Kagan and Sotomayor, but chose not to. In fact, Sen. Lamar Alexander, of Tennessee, defended his vote to confirm Sotomayor by saying, "Elections have consequences." In other words, Obama won, so he can do what he wants. Do what ? He needs to go if he's not gonna do his constitutional mandated job. He's a joke.
By now, somebody's probably thinking, "Hey Sheepdog, what about all of Obama's executive orders ? Those are on him." Ummm - not completely. There is no explicit constitutional provision that grants the president the authority to issue executive orders. There is only a brief open-ended phrase about "executive power" which Congress and The Supreme Court have allowed presidents to expand and abuse for years. What many don't know is that presidential executive orders can be squashed or overridden. Congress can pass a law to override an executive order and / or the courts can strike one down if they feel it is an overreach. In fact, both President Truman and Clinton had executive orders struck down. Therefore, Congress and the courts could keep Obama's executive orders in check, but they have chosen not to. As with everything else mentioned above, at least part of the blame for Obama's abuse of executive orders is on the legislative and judicial branches for not doing their jobs. They should have smacked his hand a long time ago.
In summary, here is where I'm going with all this. I'm not trying to tell anyone who to vote for as far as the presidency goes. Each of us has to do what he or she thinks is right. As for me, I won't support Obama and will have a hard time pushing the button by Romney's name. I'm considering going the Independent route for president for the first time ever. However, I'm still undecided.
 |
| English: President Barack Obama speaks to a joint session of Congress regarding health care reform (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Four years ago, the Democrats praised Obama as being "The One" to solve all of the country's problems. Now, Republicans are blindly, due to party loyalty, heaping the exact same praise on Romney. I would encourage them to be careful. I believe Romney is dangerous for the flip-flopping reasons mentioned above. He is simply another big government progressive.
I believe that if Americans choose to elect Romney as president, then they need to take things a step further when they go into the voting booth. We need to vote out all the left-leaning, Liberal, Progressive members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. Then, replace them with people who will actually exercise their duties and preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. It is necessary in order to keep the progressive Romney in check if he wins, or keep Obama in check if he gets re-elected. If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Obama, though. The fact is that if we don't replace the members of Congress who are derelict in their duties, then mark my words, absolutely nothing will change, and things could actually get worse with Romney. No problems will be solved, and just like with Obama, within a year of Romney taking office, the ones who voted for him will have a severe case of buyers remorse.
Think I'm wrong ? Well, think back to my October 21, 2010 post where I expressed my concerns about then candidate and now current Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam. I stated that I didn't believe he was a conservative, and therefore, would not vote for him. I also said I hoped I was wrong about him. People told me I was wrong and didn't listen to me. Now, Tennesseans everywhere are having buyers remorse. Why ? Well, less than two years into Haslam's first term, he has gone after the state's teachers, screwed gun owners by opposing the Safe Commute Bill, and also appointed a Shariah finance expert to his cabinet. That's just for starters. I could go on and on.
I nailed it on Haslam, although I hoped I was wrong. I hope I'm wrong about Romney, too, but I don't think I am. So, mark it down - just like with Haslam, you heard it from The Sheepdog first.
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck .........
Monday, March 5, 2012
Music Monday in the "Land of Confusion"
As promised in last Monday's post, I've put together a special Music Monday for today. Actually, "special" may not really be the right word. I really just wanted have a little fun today and take a poke or two at some folks.
As we all know, tomorrow is "Super Tuesday" with GOP Presidential Primaries being held in ten states, including my home state of Tennessee. In my opinion, the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates are the worst crop of my lifetime. Each one of them claims to be a so-called "Conservative" but their records tell a different story. For instance :
"Land of Confusion" is a strange, but unique, video containing scenes with puppets of the band and of various political players from the '80s including Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others. You can learn more about the video by clicking here.
The song's lyrics were fitting then, and in my opinion, they are fitting for today, also. It's especially true considering my earlier analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates. There's not a clear conservative among them, nor a really good candidate, either. It's liberals trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. If that doesn't describe a "Land of Confusion," I don't know what does. So, what does a conservative do tomorrow when he or she walks into the voting booth in the "Land of Confusion ?"
If you figure that out in the next 24 hours, please let me know, because I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm stuck having to choose from the "lesser of the evils," and I hate that. For today, though, enjoy the video by clicking here or watch it embedded below in this post.
Yes indeed - "Oh Superman, where are you now ?"
As we all know, tomorrow is "Super Tuesday" with GOP Presidential Primaries being held in ten states, including my home state of Tennessee. In my opinion, the 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates are the worst crop of my lifetime. Each one of them claims to be a so-called "Conservative" but their records tell a different story. For instance :
- Mitt Romney - He claims to be a conservative despite signing multiple tax and fee increases into law, signing restrictive gun controls into law, and creating RomneyCare which ObamaCare was modeled after while governor of Massachusetts. He first supported abortion only changing his stance to pro-life when he began considering a run for the presidency. Romney is no conservative no matter how hard he tries to paint himself as one.
- Newt Gingrich - He had not one, but two marriages fail due to cheating on his wives. He supported various gun control measures while in Congress. He's on record as supporting the individual mandate in ObamaCare, and he made millions lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He's no conservative, either.
- Rick Santorum - He loves big government and hasn't seen an earmark or spending bill he didn't like. His record on the 2nd Amendment is sketchy at best. It's hard to put the conservative label on Santorum either.
- Ron Paul - I could support Ron Paul except for one thing - his nutty foreign policy views. His opinion is that it's the U.S.'s fault that our enemies don't like us. Sorry Ron, but that's not the case. They don't like us because they hate freedom. It's that simple.
"Land of Confusion" is a strange, but unique, video containing scenes with puppets of the band and of various political players from the '80s including Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others. You can learn more about the video by clicking here.
The song's lyrics were fitting then, and in my opinion, they are fitting for today, also. It's especially true considering my earlier analysis of the GOP Presidential Candidates. There's not a clear conservative among them, nor a really good candidate, either. It's liberals trying to pass themselves off as conservatives. If that doesn't describe a "Land of Confusion," I don't know what does. So, what does a conservative do tomorrow when he or she walks into the voting booth in the "Land of Confusion ?"
If you figure that out in the next 24 hours, please let me know, because I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm stuck having to choose from the "lesser of the evils," and I hate that. For today, though, enjoy the video by clicking here or watch it embedded below in this post.
Yes indeed - "Oh Superman, where are you now ?"
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Chris Matthews Compares Politics to Transplants
I am not a fan of MSNBC's Chris Matthews, nor I am a Mitt Romney supporter. Furthermore, I have not followed the Republican 2012 Presidential Candidates with as much interest as I have in previous elections, either. I think the entire current crop is poor, to say the least. I doubt I'll vote for any of them, but that's another story for another day.
Usually, my only beef with Matthews is his Liberal, lefty viewpoints which border on Socialist ideology. While I don't agree with or like them, I can live with them because Matthews has a right to voice his opinion just as I have a right to voice, and do frequently, my own conservative viewpoint. However, when recently reporting and commenting on the results of the Republican Iowa Caucus, Matthews stepped over the line. He went on record as comparing Mitt Romney's failure to connect to the conservative base of the GOP to the human body rejecting an organ transplant. I know it's hard to believe that someone would stoop to that level, but he did. You can see it for yourself by watching the video below or you can click here.
I'm not really surprised Matthews would do something like this. If you watch MSNBC much, you've seen and heard his knuckleheaded comments before, but with these recent statements, he has stooped to a new low. For him to compare politics, which is full of corruption and scummy candidates, to the life-saving and life-improving miracle of organ and tissue transplantation, either shows his complete ignorance or is more proof that he is a complete scumbag. I'll let you make that determination for yourself. However, as a heart transplant recipient, I am pissed and highly offended. In my opinion, his comments diminish the priceless, life-saving gifts that donors and their families freely give to thousands of Americans every year. Both he and MSNBC should be ashamed.
Matthews and the network need to offer an immediate apology to the organ donation community. In addition, Matthews needs to be fired. If that doesn't happen, then perhaps the organ donation community should consider boycotting both MSNBC and its parent company NBC.
The wolves are among us.
Source : HuffingtonPost.com article "Chris Matthews Mitt Romney to Failed Organ Transplant"
Usually, my only beef with Matthews is his Liberal, lefty viewpoints which border on Socialist ideology. While I don't agree with or like them, I can live with them because Matthews has a right to voice his opinion just as I have a right to voice, and do frequently, my own conservative viewpoint. However, when recently reporting and commenting on the results of the Republican Iowa Caucus, Matthews stepped over the line. He went on record as comparing Mitt Romney's failure to connect to the conservative base of the GOP to the human body rejecting an organ transplant. I know it's hard to believe that someone would stoop to that level, but he did. You can see it for yourself by watching the video below or you can click here.
Matthews and the network need to offer an immediate apology to the organ donation community. In addition, Matthews needs to be fired. If that doesn't happen, then perhaps the organ donation community should consider boycotting both MSNBC and its parent company NBC.
The wolves are among us.
Source : HuffingtonPost.com article "Chris Matthews Mitt Romney to Failed Organ Transplant"
Friday, August 26, 2011
Case Closed
Back on August 9th, I received one of the most interesting, politically based e-mails I've ever received. In fact, it was rather comical because the words therein provided evidence backing up some of the points I've made time and time again. I should probably thank them. After "ruminating" on it, as my buddy Dale likes to say, for a couple of weeks, I thought I'd share a portion of the newsletter with you and then add a little commentary.
The portion of the e-mail newsletter that I want to call your attention to is the part titled "The Myth of the Independent Voter" and it's from the August 2011 Wilson County Tea Party Newsletter (you can link to it on their site by clicking here). The excerpt said :
Still consider yourself to be an 'Independent' at this point ? You're not paying attention." (August 2011 Wilson County Tea Party Newsletter, section titled "The Myth of the Independent Voter")
My initial reaction was, "Not paying attention, huh ? Perhaps it is you who isn't 'paying attention' ?" It also occurred to me that the ideas and viewpoints expressed in the newsletter portion show exactly the kind of thinking that has wrecked the U.S. political system. I've made the point many times on this blog that for too long, we have blindly walked into the voting booth and looked for the "R" or "D" by a candidate's name and then pushed the applicable button. We've done it without knowing their stance on the issues or their voting record. We've voted for a "party" instead of the ideals we hold dear. By doing this, we've sold out the principles and values we believe in and that our country was founded on for the sake of "the party." It has to stop.
The quoted newsletter portion did get a couple of things correct. First, it correctly described the different political views of Liberals and Conservatives. Second, it accurately reflected the three main political mindsets - Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. However, it's accuracy pretty much ends there. The referenced portion struck me as basically a partisan piece of political propaganda that infers that as a voter you have to be a Democrat or a Republican. You can't be anything else. That's un-American in that it tells you how you must vote. Such a viewpoint throws freedom of thought and freedom of speech out the window. It's just like Liberals who support freedom of speech except when they disagree with what you're saying. In that case, they want you to "sit down and shut up." I was under the impression that the tea party groups supported freedom of speech and thought ? Hmmm. Maybe I'm confused.
Furthermore, the referenced portion implies that all Democrats are Liberal Lefties and all Republicans are Conservatives. Nothing could be father from the truth. There are many Republicans that are as Liberal as Democrats. I could list them, but I'd be typing for the rest of the weekend. In addition, there is the implication that all Independents are moderates, or fence sitters, Once again, untrue. Some Independents may be moderates, but some Democrats and Republicans consider themselves to be moderates, too. Heck, there are many voters who call themselves Independents who are far more conservative than any Republican ever thought about being.
I guess the thing that really jumped out at me as I read is the lack of understanding of U.S. politics. The number of voters registered as Democrats or Republicans do NOT determine the outcome of our elections. Just ask anyone who has studied Political Science. It is a well established fact that the American electorate is about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, and the other third consider themselves Independents. It is these Independents that decide the outcome of elections. Often, an Independent is not a moderate or someone who sits on the fence. They are voters who have simply chosen not to affiliate with one of the major parties for any number of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because they used to be a member of one of the major parties but became "disgruntled" with it. In other cases, it could be that an Independent may tend to vote Democrat but not call themselves a Democrat because they don't agree with some parts of the Democratic platform. Take gun control for instance. I know some people who tend to vote for Democrats but are firearm enthusiasts who completely disagree with the Democratic Party's desire for more gun control. Others are Independents because they think that some Democrats are too liberal while others aren't liberal enough. Other Independents, such as myself, may tend to vote Republican. However, we have chosen not to brand ourselves as Republicans because some Republicans are too liberal or moderate and not conservative enough. This is where I find myself. I believe that most Republicans aren't conservative enough. Simply put, Independents generally vote for issues, NOT parties. That's basic Political Science 101.
In an earlier blog post, I made the point that some of the tea party groups are giving the Lefty Democrats evidence to support their claim that "the tea party is nothing more than a wing of the Republican Party." The newsletter excerpt makes that point for me, too, by providing more evidence to support the Lefties claim. However, in my opinion, the most disturbing thing about the newsletter is what's not said. The Chairman of the Wilson Co. Tea Party (WCTP) is Sherrie Orange. Earlier in the year, she was appointed to the Wilson Co. Election Commission. I'm not sure if Ms. Orange actually writes these newsletters, but nevertheless she is in charge of the WCTP. In my opinion, the lack of political understanding shown in the newsletter could make one wonder why she, the WCTP Chairperson, was appointed as an election commissioner. Who appoints these people anyway ? Isn't it done by an elected representative from that district ? Who could that be ? Could it have been State Senator Beavers ? I wonder who would know.
Anyway, based upon the newsletter, the appointment doesn't make any sense. Or, ..... does it ?
I love it when people make my case for me.
The portion of the e-mail newsletter that I want to call your attention to is the part titled "The Myth of the Independent Voter" and it's from the August 2011 Wilson County Tea Party Newsletter (you can link to it on their site by clicking here). The excerpt said :
"I think that most of you would agree that the two political parties are further apart in ideology today more than ever.
The left supports monstrous growth in government coupled with restrictive states' rights, higher taxes, unbridled debt, redistribution of wealth, expansion of the welfare state, class warfare, judicial activism, a weakened defense, intense government regulation and the rights and desires of the collective rather than those of the individual. The left is against the execution of violent criminals but strongly supports the abortion of innocent babies. They want religion visually removed from every corner of our society and tried to regulate speech they oppose. The left believes that America must apologize for her strength and view America's exceptionalism as 'greed' and 'arrogance'. They believe that the Constitution is an ever-changing document - one that should be changed to cater to the whims of the politically powerful - rather than a document that should be revered and provide the core structure of our government.
On the other side of the spectrum are Conservative values. They believe in smaller government in which individuals are allowed to keep as much of their earnings as possible and they support the rights of the individual. They believe that the out-of-control debt is detrimental to our future and freedom and realize that we must live within our financial means. They support states' rights and believe that hard work is the basis for wealth. They believe that the welfare state, although needed for the truly poor and disadvantaged, is destructive and addictive and that class warfare should not be part of our culture. They believe in a strong defense, limited government regulation, the free market and adherence to the Constitution. They believe in American exceptionalism. Conservatives believe that innocent babies should be protected while supporting deserved punishments for violent criminal offenders who have made repeated destructive life decisions. They strongly support the Constitution as the cornerstone of our government and judiciary and believe that this precious document should not be changed by a group of non-elected judicial activists nor is meant to be changed on a whim.
So how could someone truly place themselves ideologically in the 'middle' since the path that each of the two major political parties would like to take is starkly opposite?
You have to wonder if 'Independents' know what type of 'change' they really desire ? In the recent debt ceiling debate, for instance, it was not possible to support fiscal responsibility while supporting higher taxes coupled with higher spending - the plan of the left. Increased spending when the spending is based on a borrowed dollar is NOT fiscally responsible. In addition, increased spending when you are forcibly taking money from a hard working American to give to another is not morally or fiscally responsible.
So, what is an 'Independent' voter ?
Many years ago, it might have been possible to support the ideological middle. But now, no, it is not. The sides are polar opposites.
You may find yourself on one side of the spectrum while supporting one or two issues from the other side but, unfortunately, your vote translates to 'all or nothing' support of the agenda of one side or the other.
There is no middle.
Most of us have a hard set of core values and beliefs that guide us through our lives. These beliefs help us determine which stance we'll take on all issues in our life. Therefore, if you are aware of your core values and you understand the differences between the two major political parties, you cannot be an 'Independent'.
The quoted newsletter portion did get a couple of things correct. First, it correctly described the different political views of Liberals and Conservatives. Second, it accurately reflected the three main political mindsets - Liberals, Conservatives, and Moderates. However, it's accuracy pretty much ends there. The referenced portion struck me as basically a partisan piece of political propaganda that infers that as a voter you have to be a Democrat or a Republican. You can't be anything else. That's un-American in that it tells you how you must vote. Such a viewpoint throws freedom of thought and freedom of speech out the window. It's just like Liberals who support freedom of speech except when they disagree with what you're saying. In that case, they want you to "sit down and shut up." I was under the impression that the tea party groups supported freedom of speech and thought ? Hmmm. Maybe I'm confused.
Furthermore, the referenced portion implies that all Democrats are Liberal Lefties and all Republicans are Conservatives. Nothing could be father from the truth. There are many Republicans that are as Liberal as Democrats. I could list them, but I'd be typing for the rest of the weekend. In addition, there is the implication that all Independents are moderates, or fence sitters, Once again, untrue. Some Independents may be moderates, but some Democrats and Republicans consider themselves to be moderates, too. Heck, there are many voters who call themselves Independents who are far more conservative than any Republican ever thought about being.
I guess the thing that really jumped out at me as I read is the lack of understanding of U.S. politics. The number of voters registered as Democrats or Republicans do NOT determine the outcome of our elections. Just ask anyone who has studied Political Science. It is a well established fact that the American electorate is about one-third Democrat, one-third Republican, and the other third consider themselves Independents. It is these Independents that decide the outcome of elections. Often, an Independent is not a moderate or someone who sits on the fence. They are voters who have simply chosen not to affiliate with one of the major parties for any number of reasons. Oftentimes, it is because they used to be a member of one of the major parties but became "disgruntled" with it. In other cases, it could be that an Independent may tend to vote Democrat but not call themselves a Democrat because they don't agree with some parts of the Democratic platform. Take gun control for instance. I know some people who tend to vote for Democrats but are firearm enthusiasts who completely disagree with the Democratic Party's desire for more gun control. Others are Independents because they think that some Democrats are too liberal while others aren't liberal enough. Other Independents, such as myself, may tend to vote Republican. However, we have chosen not to brand ourselves as Republicans because some Republicans are too liberal or moderate and not conservative enough. This is where I find myself. I believe that most Republicans aren't conservative enough. Simply put, Independents generally vote for issues, NOT parties. That's basic Political Science 101.
In an earlier blog post, I made the point that some of the tea party groups are giving the Lefty Democrats evidence to support their claim that "the tea party is nothing more than a wing of the Republican Party." The newsletter excerpt makes that point for me, too, by providing more evidence to support the Lefties claim. However, in my opinion, the most disturbing thing about the newsletter is what's not said. The Chairman of the Wilson Co. Tea Party (WCTP) is Sherrie Orange. Earlier in the year, she was appointed to the Wilson Co. Election Commission. I'm not sure if Ms. Orange actually writes these newsletters, but nevertheless she is in charge of the WCTP. In my opinion, the lack of political understanding shown in the newsletter could make one wonder why she, the WCTP Chairperson, was appointed as an election commissioner. Who appoints these people anyway ? Isn't it done by an elected representative from that district ? Who could that be ? Could it have been State Senator Beavers ? I wonder who would know.
Anyway, based upon the newsletter, the appointment doesn't make any sense. Or, ..... does it ?
I love it when people make my case for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)