Do We Need A Federal Hurricane Response?

October 30, 2012 8 Comments

According to the New York Times a big storm such as Hurricane Sandy requires a big government. The Times takes their argument a step further, not only does this story require a big government but Mitt Romney wants to eliminate Federal response to big storms. To believe the Times on their second argument is to believe in unicorns. Romney has never gone on record opposing a Federal response to hurricanes and other natural disasters. The Times is taking its opportunity to baselessly attack Romney hoping it will convince people to vote for Obama. It’s shameless and typically left-wing.

FEMA didn’t exist until the Carter administration. Amazingly we survived until the late 70′s without a coordinated Federal response to hurricanes and other disasters. Since the creation of FEMA can we say that hurricane response has been very good? Sure the Feds are coordinating efforts but they haven’t exactly done a good job. FEMA consistently wastes money. Their response during Katrina was a disaster, aided by incompetent local officials in New Orleans. The FEMA response to the Gulf oil spill a few years ago was inconsistent and largely wasteful. We can go back over the years and see the same during just about every major natural disaster.

We really don’t need a coordinated Federal response during natural or other disasters. State and local governments are closest to the people who are affected by these disasters. They know and understand their needs, they know and understand the threats around them. Not only do state and local governments understand these things, private citizens and private local charities understand them as well. The Feds offer an outsiders one size fits all approach. Their approach rarely works and usually results in waste. It is state and local government that knows how to do things for their people the best, in addition to private citizens and charities.

Not only does FEMA generally do a rotten job they create a false sense of security for people. People just expect the Federal government to take care of things because they’re the biggest and perceived to be the best and/or in control. As such you have people in New Orleans who end up trapped on their roofs during a hurricane and flood. But it’s even worse than this, a giant Federal government makes citizens lazy and unwilling to help themselves. After all, government will just take care of it. By telling everyone government will take care of things, people take less responsibility to help others and to take responsibility for themselves.

Before FEMA there were a multitude of disasters in this country. The Galveston hurricane, the San Francisco earthquake, the great Chicago fire and so on. There wasn’t a Federal response to any of these disasters, in fact many in Congress (Rep. Davy Crockett for example) actively argued against Federal charity. Somehow without a Federal response people made it through the aftermath of these disasters. Local governments aided people but mostly money and other items poured in via private charities. What exactly would FEMA have done in these situations besides get in the way and waste tax money?

It’s one thing for the Feds to offer loans or subsidies to local governments after a disaster. It’s another thing for them to push everyone out of the way and control things from on high. FEMA has a long track record of waste and abuse. So for the NY Times to suggest we need big government for big storms, the facts suggest we don’t really need it. Furthermore, there is nothing that Romney has said that would suggest he favors eliminating FEMA. That is unless you’re the NY Times and take random phrases Romney has said and piece them together into such as way so that he can be attacked without mercy. We need to ask ourselves whether we really need government to do those things that private citizens should do themselves.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Partisan Obama Offended By Republicans Not Security Leaks

June 11, 2012 2 Comments

Our nation has suffered a series of important national security leaks over the last few months. From information suggesting that President Obama has a kill list and personally picks out which terrorists are to be targeted to a plot wherein the US attempted to obtain Osama’s DNA before he died. There has also been a leak suggesting the US worked with Israel to plant a computer virus in Iran’s nuclear facility. These are major leaks, the likes of which we’ve never had in American history. They’re clearly coming from a high level, though where isn’t yet known.

What’s most interesting though is the lack of outrage from President Obama. Sen. Lindsey Graham and some Republicans have suggested these leaks come directly from the White House because for all intents and purposes the leaks make Obama look like a strong wartime leader. Whether or not the White House is the source remains to be seen. At his disaster of a press conference on Friday Obama seemed far more outraged that Republicans would accuse the White House of being the leak source. He found it “offensive” that some would think the White  House leaked all this information, which he declared in a tone more befitting a sarcastic reply to a poorly made waffle.

What was disturbing about his reply isn’t that it was overtly partisan. It’s that he didn’t appear all that bothered by the security leaks. This of course feeds right into the Graham line that the leaks are intentional. He doesn’t seem bothered though that far left Sen. Dianne Feinstein or that other Democrats on various national security committees in Congress are outraged. In fact, Obama didn’t have anything to say about them. Make no mistake, there is bipartisan outrage over these leaks, this isn’t limited to Obama hating Republicans. Obama didn’t address the Democrats though.

The big problem here is that Obama doesn’t seem concerned in the least about the security leaks. They have been going on for several months, yet the President had nothing at all to say about them until asked at a hastily announced press conference on Friday. There has apparently been no investigation into the leaks, Eric Holder didn’t announce he was going to investigate until after Obama’s presser. It makes you wonder what’s going on in this administration that major national security information is being leaked to the New York Times and the President has nothing to say about it and the Attorney General doesn’t care to investigate.

Whether the White House is behind the leaks remains to be seen. Someone is committing a crime though and that the Attorney General is just now getting around to assigning a couple of his prosecutors to investigate ought to disturb us all. This should have happened the moment the administration became aware there was a leak, be that when the New York Times printed its first story or when the Times asked the White House for comment whichever was first. Instead Obama did nothing and said nothing. His outraged is reserved for Republicans, not for security leaks. The most partisan President in our lifetime is not surprisingly playing political games with a major national security threat. Obama’s game playing is far more offensive than anything Lindsey Graham had to say.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

The Plight of Entitled New York Times Employees

April 25, 2012 Leave a comment

Unionized employees at the New York Times are in an uproar over pending changes to their retirement program. No longer able to afford lavish pension benefits for retirees, the Times is attempting to move to a 401k program that employees would contribute to. The union is outraged of course. What’s interesting here is that for all of the Times attacked Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and any number of businesses who have been forced to change employee retirement programs over the years, the Times is doing exactly the same thing.

The Times has no choice but to freeze their current pension plan and replace it with a 401k. In case the liberal reporters haven’t noticed, circulation is down for all newspapers including the Old Grey Lady. It doesn’t matter that the Times is popular among liberals and intellectual elites. Subscriptions are down and the Times is getting beaten online, badly, by other papers and internet sites. As such revenue is down and with a drop in revenue it comes as no surprise that there needs to be a drop in employee benefits be it in the form of pay, healthcare or pensions.

Hysterical liberal Times employees took to You Tube to grouse about the new retirement program. The reaction of these employees is priceless in that it exposes the root of liberal bias at the paper and it exposes the entitlement mentality of liberals. One woman claims she’ll be living in a cardboard box when she retires, another claims she’ll be living on food stamps. One man wonders if he’ll have to make the choice between living with his kids and suicide. The melodramatic rants are amusing but they really expose the absurdity of the union position. Millions of Americans have 401k programs. In retirement they aren’t being forced to live in cardboard boxes or go on food stamps. They certainly aren’t contemplating suicide.

These liberals seriously believe they are entitled to live off of their employer until the day they die whether they’re working for them or not. The fact is, employers cannot afford this sort of benefit anymore. In fact, taxpayers cannot afford to pay for this sort of benefit for government employees either. This includes the Michigan government school teacher who wants to retire at the age of 47 and get full pension and medical benefits for life. The notion that we must be paid by our employer once we retire, even for decades afterward, must fall by the wayside. No employer (taxpayers included) should be expected to pay former employees massive pensions for decades on end. This sort of lazy entitlement is not only absurd but expensive.

Everyone wants to have enough money set aside so they can have a nice retirement. But a nice retirement isn’t the job of your employer. It was one thing when companies had a lot of money and could lure talent with the prospect of a nice pension. Like it or not, companies cannot afford this sort of entitlement anymore. 401k programs allow employees to contribute to and partially manage their own retirement, something they probably should have been doing all along. Most Americans have such a program, only the most entitled of union employees (mostly government employees) think they’re above it all. The New York Times employees will soon be joining all of us little people with 401k programs. While they’re grousing about it, you might want to invest in some cardboard boxes and while you’re at it invest in dog food. I know of a lot of melodramatic Times employees who will soon be in the market for a well appointed cardboard box and a can of Alpo.

Filed under unions Tagged with , , , , , ,

John Kerry Wants Tea Party Silenced

August 5, 2011 16 Comments

Unable to control the discourse in America anymore, the left has taken to demanding the media ignore conservative arguments. First it was leftist New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, now it’s Sen. John Kerry. Both believe the media has a ‘responsibility’ to the American public to ignore arguments by the Tea Party. Their only purpose of course is to silent their opposition, especially so after the Tea Party controlled the debt ceiling debate and the last election.

This is your typical coordinated leftist attack on anything they don’t like. Not only do they want the opposition silenced, but they’re going to degrade our arguments as not legitimate and not serious. That the Tea Party swept the Republicans into the House to the tune of 63 seats gained doesn’t appear to matter to Krugman or Kerry. Our position isn’t legitimate and it isn’t serious as far as they’re concerned. As elitists, they believe that they know best. We are to be quiet while they lead us. If we won’t be quiet, these guys seriously believe the media should ignore us.

It’s hard to ignore the facts. Unemployment sits at 9.1%. Nearly 46 million Americans are dependent on the government for food. Just 58% of work age Americans have jobs, the lowest since 1983. (keep in mind in 1083 more women stayed at home) Even the New York Times acknowledges we’re in a double dip recession. Meanwhile the Dow is down 10% in the last two weeks and is all over the place today.The facts are out there for everyone to see, the state of the economy is dreadful.

The conservative, Tea Party plan to fix the economy is to cut taxes and government spending. How exactly is that not a legitimate position worthy of discussion by news channels? Those who opposed raising the debt ceiling rightly point out that American families need to live within their budget and there’s no reason why, with a $14 trillion debt, the Federal government cannot do the same thing. If American families lived like the government they would have an income of $58,000, spend $75,000 and have credit card debts of $327,000.

It’s clear that this is unsustainable and that the government needs to cut back. Yet the left not only doesn’t want to cut anything out of government, they don’t want to debate cuts either. They want the media to actively shut out right-wing arguments against continued Federal spending. Their demands would have worked 40 years ago when there were only three television stations and no internet. Today, it just isn’t possible for the media to completely ignore an argument that half the country supports.

Krugman and Kerry want to dictate to the American people. They believe that we are here to serve and obey the elites in Washington. They don’t like the idea that the American people have power and have the ability to elect people who disagree with them. They hate that the American people don’t buy the notion that the Federal government needs to spend even more money. As such they want our position silenced by the media. They’re willing to call our view illegitimate, dangerous and not serious. They’ll call us terrorists, crazy and unAmerican. They will do anything to create more debt and bigger government. That they hate the Tea Party so much shows you just how much power the people have.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Hypocritical Left Uses Violent Rhetoric Against Tea Party

August 4, 2011 4 Comments

Just a few months ago when Rep. Giffords was shot by a loner gunman the left immediately blamed “violent” right-wing rhetoric for the shooting. Never mind of course that the gunman had no political motivation. Sarah Palin was the left’s favorite target because of a fundraising ploy in which Palin put various Democrat Congressmen in her ‘cross-hairs.’ In other words, Mrs. Palin was targeting certain Democrat Congressmen for defeat in the 2010 election. The left was enraged at the ‘violent’ nature of the rhetoric and took the Giffords shooting as a chance to attack Sarah Palin.

Fast forward this week and what is the left-wing line about the debt ceiling negotiations? Vice President Joe Biden called the Tea Party ‘terrorists.” His office denies this but it is undisputed that Rep. Mike Doyle alleged that his party “negotiated with terrorists” and that “this small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” I surely hope the Tea Party is preventing further spending, but it is outrageous to call us terrorists.

Over at the New York Times, Joe Nocera claims that the Tea Party is waging a “war on America.” He declares “you know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists.” Thomas Friedman called the Tea Party the “Hezbollah faction” of the GOP. Meanwhile Maureen Dowd has a glowing review of Democrats who declare the Tea Party to be “the Republican Taliban wing.”

Should we keep going? Politico ran an op-ed by Martin Frost titled “The Tea Party Taliban.” They also ran a piece by William Yeomans titled “The Tea Party’s Terrorist Tactics.” Margaret Carlson claims the Tea Party is a “nihilist caucus” who have strapped explosives on the Capitol. There are dozens of other examples from local newspapers around the country of leftists attacking the Tea Party by accusing them of being terrorists.

Keep in mind of course if the right ever accused Obama of being a terrorist the left would first call us racists then they would accuse us of hating Muslims. When they attack conservatives as being terrorists or part of terrorist Muslim groups it’s perfectly acceptable. Rather then engage in a battle of ideas with conservatives, the left would rather slander the right and act like spoiled school yard bullies.

Keep in mind, the Democrats won the debt ceiling debate. There aren’t any real cuts. Yet the far left is enraged, largely because they know Obama looked like a fool during most of the negotiations. In the end, they got bill that shuts out conservatives, raises the debt ceiling and doesn’t actually cut anything. You wouldn’t know that listening to these people whine about the Tea Party terrorists or the Hezbollah wing of the Republican Party.

The far left has two reasons for attacking the Tea Party in this manner. First, the left is furious that the debate was controlled by the Tea Party. Second, they’re setting up the Tea Party for when the economy gets worse. They’re going to blame the debt ceiling deal for the economy falling into a double dip recession, which of course will have nothing to do with a couple billion in cuts. Never mind of course that the debt ceiling bill was written by Senate Democrats.

Truth doesn’t matter with these people, all that matters is slandering opponents. It’s why they spent a month attacking conservatives after Rep. Giffords was shot even though the shooter wasn’t a conservative. They called for civility and an end to violent rhetoric by conservatives. Just six months later they’re calling conservatives terrorists and nihilists who are part of Taliban and Hezbollah factions of the Republican Party. So much for civility, so much for non-violent public discourse. On the left, the ends justify the means even if they’re hypocritical. That is the state of public discourse in America.  

 

Filed under culture, Politics, Sarah Palin Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Progressives Preach Doom and Gloom “Full Earth”

June 8, 2011 Leave a comment

The environmentalist wackos are always good for a laugh. The only problem with them is that they are deadly serious and have connections to socialists and other big government types who are all to willing to use so-called climate change as an excuse to push socialism on the US and the world. Last week one environmentalist crazy suggested that those of us who deny climate change as they define it should be tattooed. The writer backed off his statement toward the end of his editorial but the message is clear, it is acceptable to brand and attack people who dare to question saintly scientists and their big government benefactors.

NY Times Columnist Thomas Friedman declared yesterday that the Earth was full. A full Earth explains why food prices are rising according to Friedman and it is a signal that massive social upheaval is going to happen throughout the world. Let’s ignore Friedman’s misunderstanding of economics (food prices are rising because of a weak dollar, government regulations and because we’re burning our food as ethanol) and focus on a full Earth and massive social upheaval.

A declaration of a full Earth is essentially a license for government to kill children or prevent children from being born. While Friedman notes environmental problems in China, proponents of a full Earth must adore China’s one child policy. After all, if Earth is full then less humans should be on the planet. One way to achieve that is to kill off all the old people. Not being politically expedient to kill off the old folks, killing off the unborn is much easier. It stands to reason that if Earth is full the best way to reduce the number of people is to prevent children from being born. A one child policy would, in theory, reduce the number of people in the world by half in a generation or two. That’s great for Earth worshipers but it isn’t so hot for those of us who believe life is a blessing from God and who desire a large family or for those of us who don’t buy the full Earth line.

 Friedman predicts massive social upheaval in the next century because of climate change. This argument goes hand in hand with the progressive desire for massive social upheaval and change. The progressives want to separate us from our historic Christian and capitalist past and create a new socialist civilization. The climate change, Earth worshiper types want to destroy western civilization and capitalism and create an environmentally friendly paradise. You can see why far left progressives are almost always advocates of the faulty climate change theories. By scaring people into believing the Earth is in danger, they can push for the radical progressive change they so desire.

While it may be 90 outside today, the fact is the Earth is not warming and it hasn’t since 1998. Over the past several years dozens of prominent climate change scientists have been exposed as frauds and snake oil salesmen. Over the past two decades, hundreds of laws in nations throughout the world have shown to have little to no affect on the environment, despite being enacted with great environmental fanfare. Climate change is a fraud, it is nothing more than a means to push a big government, anti-freedom end. Earth is not full, we are not suffering from global warming and the environment is just fine. The far left is lying to you because they want power over you and your life.

Filed under Climate Change, Global Warming Tagged with , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers