This is our grandson making his UNBUCKET.COM presentation to private investors. In my previous memo I mis-typed and referred to is as UNBUGGET and he e mailed me : " Hahaha Unbucket, not Unbugget :)"
---
Watch PJTV.Com "Here's a great analysis of why public sector unions should not be supported, which was the source of the recent recall in Wisconsin.
http://www.pjtv.com/s/HE2TAOI"
---
Heads or tails? (See 1 below.)
---
Lynching "Leo" Zimmerman. (See 2 below.)
---
John Henry say 'he don't want the ball.'
Obama shoots baskets but when it comes to foreign policy he fumbles the football. (See 3 below.)
---
Boortz on Bill! (See 4 below.)
---
John Henry say 'he don't want the ball.'
Obama shoots baskets but when it comes to foreign policy he fumbles the football. (See 3 below.)
---
Boortz on Bill! (See 4 below.)
---
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the more fascinating reads published recently are Mark Levin's Ameritopia and Dennis Prager's Still the Best Hope. Both provide penetrating analysis on why a century of progressivism has propelled the USA to the brink of a national catastrophe. And both offer a compelling vision of a return to bedrock conservatism as the only and obvious solution to the economic and cultural calamities that barely checked liberalism has bestowed upon the nation. Each author writes with great passion, and both arrive at very similar conclusions.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_lynching_of_george_zimmerman.html#ixzz1xIWIyZa4
George Zimmerman's public image took a blow when a judge revoked his bond, alleging that Zimmerman willfully misled the court concerning his financial situation. The fact that he's back in jail makes him appear guilty in the public's eye, and that's what matters. Whether or not Zimmerman misled the court is immaterial. In fact, his guilt or innocence is immaterial. His trial has transcended justice; it's now about capitalizing on opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
However, there is a major difference in the approaches of the two works. Levin emphasizes the flawed political and economic theories that animate the progressive agenda. He explains how four fundamentally utopian fantasies (Plato's Republic, Thomas More's Utopia, Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, and Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto) have provided the political playbook from which liberals over the last century have drawn their inspiration and hatched their strategies. Prager, on the other hand, attributes much of the motivation for liberal initiatives to a reaction to the innate feelings that progressives have about the issues that confront the nation. Rather than follow a specific blueprint for "hope and change," progressives are inclined, according to Prager, to follow their feelings about how things should be, why they are not that way, and how to bring them about.
Of course, whether they heed their heads or their hearts, liberals advance their progressive agenda in the face of overwhelming evidence that their statism results in such things as high unemployment, decreased productivity, diminished freedom, cultural decay, inadequate defense capabilities, entrenched poverty, and the erosion of family, community, and the pillars of civil society.
Now, the most important progressive operating in the U.S. today is President Obama. Any self-respecting conservative -- and, one would hope, any objective American not hypnotized by leftist propaganda -- is appalled at the economic and cultural carnage thrust upon the country by the Obama administration. Obama's removal from office is mandatory if the country is to be rescued from the pit toward which he is driving us with reckless abandon. Therefore, to maximize the chances of that happening, it would be helpful to know: what exactly motivates the president -- his head or his heart?
Levin and Prager are in apparent agreement that the progressive portion of America comes in two flavors -- intellectuals and, for lack of a better term, ordinary foot soldiers. The former consists of professors, lawyers, school administrators, Hollywood glitterati, liberal think-tank leaders, librarians, journalists, most media types, certain philanthropists, many clergy, and even some corporate moguls. These are people who are true believers in Levin's four utopian (actually dystopian) fantasies; people who are convinced that America's founding was based on flawed principles and that the country must be remodeled according to a more progressive image. The insidious nature of their venture is that they pursue their revolutionary goals using the language and tools of the Founding (the Constitution, the invocation of freedom, appeals to rights), but at every turn, they subvert founding principles to serve their revolutionary purpose. The danger they pose to the Republic springs from the transformational plans in their heads.
Progressives who lead with their hearts, on the other hand, tend to be "ordinary" Americans -- government employees, union laborers, schoolteachers and secretaries, cops and cab drivers, farmers, firemen and factory workers -- who feel that rich people have too much and that more of their wealth should be spread around. They've never read Levin's four utopian fantasies, and they rarely, if ever, think about the philosophical characteristics of progressivism or conservatism. Throughout their entire lives, they have been subjected to a progressive programming (really a brainwashing) carried out by their teachers, public officials, union leaders, media sources, liberal clergy, and even their parents. They are clueless as to the radical alteration that American society has already undergone. What they do know is: they are uncomfortable with perceived inequities in American society, and the government has had success in the past at alleviating the discrepancies, but much more needs to be done in that vein. They have been told, and they believe, that America's economic system -- i.e., free-market capitalism -- while it offers the opportunity for a few to amass great wealth, keeps most citizens -- like themselves -- in a perpetual state of stress trying to meet monthly bills, perform satisfactorily on the job, provide adequate sustenance for one's family, and find some time to enjoy life.
Moreover, such thinking infects the substantial portion of the population that does not consider itself progressive. As Prager relates, the pervasive liberal brainwashing to which all of America is subject explains how, despite the fact that only 20% of the people self-identify as liberal -- whereas 40% self-identify as conservative, and another 40% as moderate -- a hardcore, unabashed liberal like Barack Obama could be elected president.
Obama is clearly from the intellectual class, not a foot soldier. So the answer to the question posed in the title is presumably that his head is more dangerous than his heart. Ah, but here is a point that is mentioned, but not emphasized, in both books. Namely, the heart of an intellectual progressive is every bit as devoted to the progressive cause as is his head. Progressives are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their philosophy and the justice of their cause. Therefore, the legitimacy and necessity of the remaking of society that the intellectuals seek to engineer -- and at which they have been remarkably successful -- is so deeply ingrained in the fiber of their being that it is inevitable that their feelings about the cause are as strong as, if not stronger than, those among the foot soldiers. In principle, one can argue with and try to persuade a progressive of the error of his philosophy if his motivation is solely intellectual. But if the impetus is internalized and abetted by powerful feelings, then -- as anyone who has tried knows -- arguing with a progressive is a futile exercise.
So a final word to conservatives. When criticizing Obama, it is pointless to attack his feelings, preferences, or motivations. The feelings are ingrained and will not change. Moreover, attacks on his personality or character are likely to be a turn-off for "moderate" or undecided voters. Instead, it is Obama's progressive philosophy that should be squarely in the cross hairs. At this point, at least half the voting public recognizes progressive policies for the disaster they represent. Conservatives need only to convince a few more undecided voters of the danger posed by Obama's head -- and his heart -- should he gain a second term. By attacking progressive principles, and by providing beneficial conservative alternatives, Mitt and the GOP should be able to chase Obama from the White House without breaking a sweat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Lynching of George Zimmerman
By Anthony W. HagerRead more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_lynching_of_george_zimmerman.html#ixzz1xIWIyZa4
George Zimmerman's public image took a blow when a judge revoked his bond, alleging that Zimmerman willfully misled the court concerning his financial situation. The fact that he's back in jail makes him appear guilty in the public's eye, and that's what matters. Whether or not Zimmerman misled the court is immaterial. In fact, his guilt or innocence is immaterial. His trial has transcended justice; it's now about capitalizing on opportunity.
Zimmerman has maintained since day one that Trayvon Martin instigated their fatal confrontation. Zimmerman's various injuries coupled with autopsy results revealing Martin's injured knuckles tend to support his story. That evidence might be the reason why he wasn't charged immediately after the shooting. Yet he remains guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of many, including the federal government and national media.
Could there be an orchestrated campaign between government and media entities to see this man imprisoned, or even executed? Despite the physical evidence of which we're aware, an apparent lack of credible witnesses on either side of the case, and expert legal opinion belittling Florida's case against Zimmerman, the FBI has launched a hate crime investigation against him. And it could stick.
We might logically believe that the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy would compel the Justice Department to abandon the case if Zimmerman is acquitted. Not necessarily. According to Cleveland State Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich, Supreme Court precedent has established a narrow threshold for claiming double jeopardy. "The double jeopardy clause would not prohibit a federal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman, even if he were acquitted in Florida state court," Prof. Rich states, although he believes that the likelihood of federal prosecution following a state acquittal is small.
However, FBI involvement means Department of Justice involvement, which in turn means Eric Holder involvement. Mr. Holder's idea of judicial impartiality is, shall we say, conflicted.
Under Holder's management, the Justice Department engaged in a gun-running operation that if done privately would've sent all involved parties to the darkest of prisons. Imagine you or me being caught smuggling weapons to Mexican drug lords and coercing legitimate domestic firearms dealers to participate. And Holder's disregard for justice doesn't end there, nor does the media's capitulation.
Not content to simply ignore the New Black Panthers' voter intimidation efforts, Holder closed the ongoing investigation. Neither he nor his predecessor investigated a hate crime when five blacks kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated Channon Christian and Christopher Newsome. There was no national outrage and no political speechifying. Christian's and Newsome's brutal deaths barely registered with the national media.
For example, a search for "Channon Christian" on the New York Times website returned only 53 results, just three of which addressed the murdered woman. Two of those stories were duplicates, and the third a synopsis of a television show that reviewed the crime. In other words, the New York Times all but ignored Channon Christian's death. Conversely, a "Trayvon Martin" search yields more than 4,000 results.
A black mob attacked two white reporters in Norfolk, Virginia. Again, neither Holder nor the media showed interest. Not even the newspaper where the reporters worked reported the story. Four "minorities" beat a soldier in Tampa, Florida, and the result is deafening silence. The Justice Department hasn't launched a hate crimes investigation, and no civil rights leader has scheduled a march.
What benefit exists in practicing selective justice and biased reporting? Why is black-on-white crime, like the Christian-Newsome murders, largely ignored, while white-on-black crime is overhyped? It's no mere oversight. Since the "progressive" solution to every problem is more government, we can expect bureaucrats and leftist politicians to demagogue racial issues. The sympathetic press corps is content with being their cheerleaders.
The odds of Zimmerman's exoneration are fading even as the evidence suggests his innocence. The Florida prosecutor may have intended to lose this case from the start. But the hate crime investigation and selective reporting from the national media serve to steer public opinion toward Zimmerman's guilt. If you dare question the prosecution or media reports, well, you're just a racist.
Whether or not Florida has overstated its case against George Zimmerman is still undetermined. He may be guilty as sin. But the federal government and its media lapdogs have engaged an agenda that transcends guilt or innocence. They've become co-conspirators in a quasi-lynching, which affects not only the lynched party, but anyone who questions the lynching or its motive. This trial is no longer about George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, or even justice. The goal is to create distrust and animosity along racial, philosophical, and ideological lines.
No matter how Zimmerman's trial plays out, whether he's convicted or acquitted, the left have achieved tactical victories. They've sown doubt regarding the right of an individual to protect life and limb. Each state's authority to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes occurring within its borders is compromised, which concentrates power in the central government. Racial tension and division increase, too, which invariably leads to less liberty.
The purpose of a lynching isn't to punish the accused ne'er-do-well. It's to intimidate anyone who shares characteristics or attitudes with the victim. George Zimmerman has been lynched, no matter how his case is adjudicated. But the message behind the lynching isn't for him; it's for the rest of us.
Anthony W. Hager has authored more than 400 articles for various websites, newspapers, and periodicals. Contact him via his website, www.therightslant.com.
3)
US official Fred Hoff, Ambassador Michael McFaul in Moscow
After the hopeless gridlock at the special UN session on the Syrian crisis Thursday, an American delegation headed by Fred Hoff, the Secretary of State’s special adviser on Syria, drew a blank in the talks it conducted at the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow Friday, June 8, with Syrian expert, Mikhail Bogdanov.
Moscow sources report exclusively that Moscow has flatly rejected President Barack Obama’s proposal to post 5,000 armed UN monitors in Syria, most of them Russian troops, as the core of a new plan to resolve the Syrian crisis. The Russians may consider convening an international conference, but only if its remit is limited to offering a basis for negotiations between the Assad regime and the opposition and new political reforms. On no account must it deal with Bashar Assad’s removal.
Moscow’s position has grown tougher in the last few days. After Russian officials stated this week that keeping the Assad regime in power was not a priority, Bogdanev said Friday: Moscow isn’t discussing ways to promote Bashar al-Assad’s ouster with Washington. “We aren’t holding such talks.”
He stressed that the only way forward on the Syrian issue was by expanding Annan’s peace plan.
However, the only thing that all the participants at the UN could agree on was that the Annan peace plan had failed. And now that the US mission to Moscow has run into another dead end, the violence in Syria will continue to run riot with no world power or body prepared to step in and stop it.
However, the only thing that all the participants at the UN could agree on was that the Annan peace plan had failed. And now that the US mission to Moscow has run into another dead end, the violence in Syria will continue to run riot with no world power or body prepared to step in and stop it.
Adding to the complications, the Syrian conflict and the Iranian nuclear controversy are becoming inextricably intermeshed. The US official Hoff knew he was arriving in Moscow at a grave disadvantage after Iran indicated to the six world powers that it was seriously considering not turning up for their third round of nuclear talks in Moscow on June 18-19.
Its pretext: The West had failed to come up with “serious proposals.”
Most of all, Tehran took umbrage over US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s demand that Iran come to the talks prepared with “concrete steps to curb its enrichment of uranium to 20 percent purity.”
When she spoke, Clinton knew there was not the slightest chance of the Iranians accepting this demand.
Tehran also pulled in its horns at International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna when confronted Friday, June 8, with demands to open up its suspect nuclear sites to international inspection.
Tehran also pulled in its horns at International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headquarters in Vienna when confronted Friday, June 8, with demands to open up its suspect nuclear sites to international inspection.
These related developments all point in one direction: US President Barack Obama’s deep reluctance to intervene directly in Syria and preference for Russia and Iran to take over have run up against equally powerful reluctance in Moscow and Tehran to put their hands in the Syrian fire or take part in any international effort to quench its flames.
Indeed, the Russians and Iranians believe that as the flames of the civil war already raging there spread, the US president will be blamed by the American public and the Arab world for the horrendous sectarian bloodbath.
And if Obama and America's European allies do decide on military intervention, they will be too late and find themselves pulled down into a bottomless quagmire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Clinton's "Apology"
For the past 18 hours or so I’ve been watching various pundits try to analyze Bill Clinton’s so-called “apology” to Barack Obama? Apology for what? Apology for suggesting that now, while we’re in a recession and trying to find the key to growing our economy, might not be a good time to raise taxes on the rich. So naturally the Obama people contacted the Clinton people to ask them just what in the hell they’re trying to do? Obama’s one constant theme since he was sworn in is that the rich – the people who pay the bulk of the income taxes in this country – need to pay more because, after all, they have money they don’t “need.” Obama even went so far at one point as to say that he didn’t want to live in a country that would “allow him” to keep this money that he has earned that he didn’t really need. And then along comes Clinton to say that now would be a bad time to raise taxes on these people?
So yesterday, Clinton apologizes. Clinton, the man who last year gathered a group of people together in his home to discuss Obama – a meeting at which he referred to Obama as an “amateur,” – now feels sorrowful for saying that raising taxes on the evil rich would be bad right not? Clinton said: “I’m very sorry for what happened. I thought something had to be done on the fiscal cliff before the election.” He said that now he wants to agree with Obama that taxes need to be raised on the rich right now!
OK … I’m just seeing this differently than other folks. That’s probably because I’m not as smart and experienced as they are in the world of political punditry. But here is what I think Clinton was really saying. Seriously .. the tone of his comments, the way he uttered his apology .. here’s what I think he really wanted us to hear:
“I mean, what the hell do I know? I managed the U.S. economy for eight years, and we never were in this kind of a mess. What does my eight years in the White House mean in the face of the massive executive and economic experience Barack Obama brought to the White House with him. Foolish me. I thought that at a time when job growth isn’t even coming close to keeping pace with our population increase; at a time when we’re making downward corrections in the numbers of new jobs every single month; here I thought that this might not be a good time to raise taxes on the very people we depend on to create new jobs. Not only that, but I thought that we needed to do everything we could to promote job creation before the election, instead of waiting until after. I’m truly very sorry. Really! What was I thinking? Barack Obama’s reelection is much more important than moving now to stimulate job growth, and the president’s class warfare campaign – playing off of wealth envy by insisting on punishing the rich with higher taxes – is really all he has going for him. So I’ll be the team player. To hell with our economy. This is really all about Obama, not about those people out there looking for a way to support their families, pay their bills, keep their homes and plan for their retirements. So let’s raise taxes on the jobs producers right now!”
Yup --- that’s pretty much what he said. The sarcasm was palpable. You just had to listen carefully
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment