Bill's blog
OK, let’s get a little perspective here!
Los Angeles:
This week an “immigrant,” I put it in quotes because we have not learned at this writing whether he is legal or illegal, was shot to death by the LAPD. The city of Los Angeles and the LAPD are taking a lot of heat for this as you would expect.
What seems to be a minor point to those who report the news and to those professional advocates who hunger for this kind of “victim,” also in quotes is that the man was drunk, he was wielding a knife, he was threatening a pregnant woman and he refused to drop the knife when ordered to by the LAPD.
What the hell did this guy expect?
The professional advocates and victim makers must be delighted. They have a victim that they can use for a variety of purposes. The plight of the “immigrant” in the evil country of America, because we know that no one gets shot and killed south of the border. They also can use this poor jerks death to attack law enforcement, so that they will be even more conscience than they are how about the importance of political correctness over public safety and rule of law.
How could this have been understood and prevented? Well, if this is an illegal guest in our evil land perhaps if he hadn’t violated the law in the first place and hadn’t enter this country illegally he might very well still be alive. However, if he was an illegal and he flaunted one law, why are we surprised that he would flaunt another law and that is, it isn’t legal to threaten someone with a weapon whether you are drunk or not. It is not legal to resist arrest, whether you are drunk or not. It is not legal to hold a person against their will and attempt to hurt or kill them even if you are drunk and an immigrant.
Even if he was not an immigrant legal or not, all those above illegal actions apply to U.S. citizens as well.
So brace yourself to watch the media and the professional advocates and victim makers give long, violent ridden and passionate speeches from the top of this unfortunate violent and inebriated “victims” casket, just don’t be too appalled by them giving each other the high five.
I recently received this question on facebook: you're a tea party dude? This is how I answered.
I don't understand the question. Do you mean have I attended their events, no. Do I have a membership card, no. I don't think they have membership cards. Or do you mean do I respect and believe in the right of American citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights, whether I disagree or agree with their position? yes. Do I believe that citizens have the right to assemble, a right to speak freely in a non-violent manner? The answer is yes, again.
Or are you asking if I am a right wing crazy or left wing crazy? They may disagree on issues but are totally in agreement on tactics, limit free speech to those who agree with their point of view only and lie and misrepresent information about those who don't agree with them? . These nuts are either for or against things like the fairness doctrine depending who is in power.
Are you asking if I have contempt for the extreme left, yes I do but I also have contempt for the extreme right but I firmly believe they both have a right to be speak and be heard.
So, am I "tea party dude?" Only in the sense that I stand firm for their right to exercise their Constitutional rights and I do agree with them that government is incompetent and ill equipped to manage most programs and that this and the last administration are incompetent and are two ships of fools. Government is rarely a solution but almost always a problem. I served in government and spent most of my misspent youth working in political campaigns, three of those campaigns were on the national level. I have little faith and even less respect for Democrats, which was my party or Republicans which wasn't my party.
I believe in the Constitution and the rights that it tries to protect despite the assault on those rights from our government. I do believe in the natural rights of men/women that come from God, a higher power of the tree god if you prefer….whatever floats your boat. The rights of the individual are more important than the rights of government, the latter can lead to totalitarianism mind set of government. The government is here to serve us not the other way around.
So am I a "tea party dude?" No I am an American and proud and fortunate to be an American. So, I guess in the minds of many of my colleagues on campuses that might make me a right wing extremist because I don't hate Americans or America...screw 'em. I can read and write and think for myself, I don't need faux liberals or conservatives; or Democrats or Republicans; or the media to tell me what I think or what I should believe. I am capable of discernment and have the ability to spot the bull. I know what I believe and unlike many of our good citizens, I know why I believe it. Hope this answers the question. A simple yes or no would have been misleading.
Something to think about in light of the Arizona ruling.
This was sent to me awhile ago. In light of the ruling in Arizona this week, I thought I would share it with you now.
I will discuss this on this weeks program.
I want to thank Tom N.
Here is what was sent:
My great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Civil War, my father watched as his friends died in WW II, and I watched as my friends died in Vietnam .
None of them died for the Mexican Flag.
Everyone died for the U.S. flag.
Just this week, here in Texas , a student raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole; another student took it down. Guess who was expelled...the kid who took it down.
Kids in high school in California were sent home this week on Cinco de Mayo because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them.
Enough is enough.
The below e-mail message needs to be viewed by every American; and every Americanneeds to stand up for America .
We've bent over to appease the America-haters long enough.
I'm taking a stand.
I'm standing up because the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the U.S. flag can't stand up.
If you agree, stand up with me.
If you disagree, please let me know.
I will gladly remove you from my e-mail list.
And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.
Let me make this perfectly clear!
THIS IS MY COUNTRY!
And, because I make This statement DOES NOT Mean I'm against immigration!!!
YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY! Welcome! To come through legally:
1. Get a sponsor!
2. Get a place to lay your head!
3. Get a job!
4. Live By OUR Rules!
5. Pay YOUR Taxes!
And
6. Learn the LANGUAGE like immigrants have in the past!!!
AND
7. Please don't demand that we hand over our lifetime savings of Social Security Funds to you.
If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone,
Then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!
When will AMERICANS STOP giving away THEIR RIGHTS???
We've gone so far the other way... bent over backwards not to offend anyone.
But it seems no one cares about the AMERICAN CITIZEN that are being offended!
WAKE UP America !!!
If You agree.... Pass this on.
If You don't agree.. Delete It!!!
THe Quote
The Quote
6.24.10
I recently received the above quotation in an email recently. I decided to discuss this with D’neirf Enigami, who is a devout modern progressive. I thought that I would get his thoughts on this quote and asked him to reference it and comment on it in terms of how it relates to the modern progressive movement. Here is the interview:
WS Hello D’neirf, how are you today?
DE How could I be with the wealthy persecuting the poor?
WS OK….glad to hear you are doing well?
DE And what about big oil?
WS Now, D’neirf, I gave you the following quote:
“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
WS I thought it would be interesting if you could give your personal perspective about this quote and your perspective about this in relationship to the modern progressive philosophy. I thought we could go through it line by line.
DE I can tell you whoever wrote this was a mad person. Out of touch with the times and how the new order is being established. People like this should not be allowed to run around loose.
WS OK, but could you please get on to the quote.
DE Yes, of course, I know, it goes against the beliefs and thinking of progressive people every where. Where does someone get the audacity to write something like this, besides the First Amendment? This is very dangerous thinking if the progressive agenda is to be moved forward and make the world the utopia we know it can become if the modern progressive philosophy is followed and adopted.
I will examine this quote line by line and see how this type of subversive and dangerous thought can undermine the modern progressive plan.
WS Great, the first line is “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.”
DE The problem with statement is obvious. Any progressive thinker, worth their salt, knows that you can help the poor by destroying the rich, duh. That’s the point. The rich are evil, we all know that. Many of them have worked hard to become rich. Do we really want to promote the idea that if you work hard and risk that you can prosper…I hope not.
WS You don’t think it is good to work hard?
DE Please, you are so old school, you probably have a copy of the Bill of Rights on your phone.
WS So. The second line states that “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”
DE That is exactly what you want to do. That is how we achieve equality. It also allows the truly enlightened modern progressives control the unenlightened masses, those who hold on to the outdated idea of life, liberty and justice for all, now if that could be changed to “for some” then maybe a progressive monologue could begin.
WS So you, modern progressives are willing to enter into a dialog with those who disagree with you?
DE I said, monologue and no, not really, the unenlightened, like yourself are tedious. Next line please.
WS You are a piece of work D’neirf.
DE I will take that as a compliment.
WS the next line is “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.” What do you think about that.
DE Who wants to bring about prosperity? You have prosperity there is less control. The more we spend the less prosperity, the more control. I don’t see why the unenlightened don’t get that, control is a good thing, isn’t it?
WS Freedom and liberty are good things.
DE Overrated and unrealistic if you want an orderly society.
WS What is your idea of orderly?
DE Where the modern progressive movement in power, I mean control.
WS I see.
DE I doubt it but one day, I am sure you will. NEXT>
WS “You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.” What do you think about that.
DE Was the incompetent who wrote this crazy? Of course you can lift the wage earner up by pulling down the wage payer. It is simple you make him pay more and pay more taxes so that when wage payer goes out of business the wage earners and I might add, the wage payer now will still have an income that will paid with the taxes collected by the government that have been collected from other wage payers that have not yet been put out of business. Boy, this isn’t rocket science.
WS You mean you actually think that destroying business is good?
DE Are business owners rich or have the potential to be rich, I rest my case.
WS OK, now this next line, I am sure that you will agree with, “You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”
DE I don’t agree at all! Of course you can, how are modern progressives supposed win elections? It is essential that you not only pit poor against wealthy but you also have to pit the poor against the middle class and the middle class against the wealthy. If you are really ambitious if you want to be a modern progressive on the move up learn how to race bait. If you master creating strife between the races, try your hand at starting friction between those of faith. If you master that, you are ready then go after creating gender strife, for example with the above line, say some thing like “WOW! Whoever wrote that must be a sexiest look at the word he used…brotherhood? What an insult, to exclude women like that. The point is if you want to move up in the modern progressive movement, use all the tools available. Remember Political Correctness is your friend.
WS “You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.” You must be in favor of people taking initiative; you and other modern progressives seem to be taking initiative?
DE Duh? Who wants to build character or courage? Why would you want to build character or courage? How would that advance the progressive agenda? It doesn’t. Why do you think that modern progressives have been so diligent to support the current educational system? If you don’t require accountability or responsibility or achievement and you just advance people for being around then you have the problem with developing character and courage solved. The best way not to develop character and courage is just not have it taught or required in school. You don’t listen very well.
WS This is the last line of the quote “You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
DE Does this guy have a learning disability? Who wants to help people? And certainly we don’t want them to do anything for themselves! That would defeat the purpose wouldn’t it? If unenlightened did for themselves they would be as easy to control and they might develop some of that character and courage. Independence, character and courage are not allies to the modern progressive. If you are you won’t want to destroy the rich, or weaken the strong. If you had character you wouldn’t want to pull down the wage payer. Someone with character would never think or believe that inciting class hatred or any other hatred was a legitimate political tool. Building character or courage or promoting independence or empowering people is certainly not part of the modern progressive agenda or plan. The modern progressive agenda promotes, no, embraces, dependence, lack of courage and character in the unenlightened. I don’t get it.
WS I agree with you, you don’t. Thanks for taking the time.
DE I am always glad to bring a little light in to the life of someone like you. By the way, which one of your right wing, unenlightened, racist friends came up with that ridiculous quote.
WS It wasn’t a friend’s quote.
DE Well, whoever it is, he is an idiot and could never understand the difficulties of keeping a society together or how difficult it is to govern. So who’s quote.
WS Abraham Lincoln
“What Do You Do With A General When He Stops Being A General”
6/24/10
General McChystal left President Obama no choice but to accept his resignation or fire him if you prefer. It is a breech of protocol and tradition to criticize the “commander in chief” publicly or in the press. It is a big no-no.
I do not disagree, the military’s roll is not make or comment on policy, the military’s job carry out policy decisions made my a civilian government.
There is one other twist to the McChrystal story, although he showed poor judgment with his comments, the General and his aides were correct in his assessment of the President and the administration.
Included in the Rolling Stone article are McChrystal remarks, most of which came from his staff. One McChrystal aide called national security adviser James Jones a “clown.” Can’t be much argument there.
U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a three-star general, was characterized as more concerned with protecting “his flank for the history books,” by sending out CYA memos constantly. McChrystal felt and was "betrayed" by Eikenberry who leaked a memo saying, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was not an "adequate strategic partner" for the United States. You would have thought that this comment was information that if repeated would not be in the best interest of our soldiers in Afghanistan, yet The President’s “man,” Eikenberry leaked the comment.
One of McChrystal’s aides also commented that Richard Holbrooke, the Obama Middle East envoy, was described as "a wounded animal." The aide said that "Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous."
However, what probably upset the President the most was the critique, that in a meeting with senior military officials, that he (President Obama) appeared “uncomfortable and intimidated.” So what’s new, the President is intimidated by foreign leaders or anyone who may be competent.
I have been saying for several years now that the President just doesn’t get it. That he does not have a grasp of policy, issues, history or the American people. He doesn’t understand America and he doesn’t understand Americans. He is also surrounded and influenced by people who do not like America.
He is the uninvolved President, all ideology, no substance or thought. The Rolling Stone article cites a source saying McChrystal was "disappointed" with his meeting with Obama, who was uninformed and not engaged, this is credited to McChrystal's aides.
This is not the first time McChrystal has irritated the president. When Vice President “Duh?” Biden opposed the troop build up and came up with his plan for withdrawal most of the troops and instead fight the war with drones. McChrystal commented that would result in “Chaos-istan.”
The President never gave McChrystal the support he sought from the beginning, CBS News reported that “McChrystal sought 50,000 troops for the surge.” Obama gave authourized 30,000, while trying to get other nations to send troops. But at the time of the surge the President made another one of his ill advised moves by declaring a deadline to begin to withdraw the troops. It is believed that McChrystal thought this was a mistake. Most rational people and competent people know that you do reveal your plans publicly to the enemy. It is a sign of weakness. This undermined our position with the Afghans and puts our troops in harms way as well as those Afghans that support our efforts.
Why would the President do something like this, the answer is obvious. He is incapable of standing up to the pressure from the left wing of his party to make a timetable in stone for troop withdrawal. He did this over the objections of conservatives who believed this would destabilize the situation is Afghanistan. It is beginning to look like the administration’s decision to set an artificial deadline could prove to be a devastating disaster to our effort in Afghanistan and may have made a successful effort impossible.
Ah, “Change We Can Believe In.” Perhaps critics, during the campaign, of President Obama’s lack of experience, including Vice President “Duh?” Biden, were right…maybe a President of the United States does need administrative experience beyond his campaign staff.
So what is the moral of this little “Obama Drama?” Those who don’t know…don’t know. Those who do get fired.
THEY SHOULD HAVE ALL HANDLED THIS OPENLY AND “OILY”
Last year, one of my students did a paper and presentation on the importance of transparency in the midst of a business crisis. In his discussion of crisis management, he cited two examples, the first the Exxon Valdez spill and the second Johnson & Johnson’s Tylenol recall a few years ago. It was an outstanding paper that made that compared the way the two companies handled their difficult situation. Simply put Johnson & Johnson handled their difficulties openly and efficiently, whereas Exxon stonewalled and tried to control the story. Today, we have confidence in Tylenol and Exxon remains the horrible example used when the topic of crisis management or corporate responsibility.
What could have been learned from these two examples by British Petroleum and the Obama Administration? The lesson to learn is to be pro-active. You must act and look like you are acting with a sense of urgency. You have to convince the public that everything that can be done is being done and will be done. You have to get out in front of public opinion and you have to show respect for the victims.
We have to remember that was an accident and accidents happen and have impact on our lives. I am sure that BP and their affiliated companies would have preferred this had never happened. So making these companies out to be heartless capitalists, who wanted to destroy the environment. Rational people believe this, in fact the only people who do are those in the environmental lobby and their lemmings and of course any politician who thinks he can pick up a few votes.
BP started off well, we saw executives come before the cameras and say all the right things, but unfortunately they underestimated the problem. Obviously, so did the administration, no real leadership was apparent from the White House, other than the usual rhetoric that has become a trademark of this Administration, “all show, no go.”
BP should have been candid with the American people and tried every that was possible. There should have been explanations of why some options were or were not possible. BP did not continue to be transparent.
The Administration, from the beginning postured and treated the situation as a problem that was totally the responsibility of BP. Basically, their problem, they can deal with it. The President was detached and continued his posturing. He talked a lot but said and did very little; this too, has become a trademark of this administration. We got the “huff and puff” and the usual incompetent or inappropriate response. Mr. Obama can not hope to manage a crisis when he isn’t able to recognize a crisis. He doesn't see our dependence on foreign oil as a defense issue and he doesn't view the threat of terrorism as a crisis.
Questions for the American people should be: why didn’t he put the full resources of the Federal government into play? Why did he wait so long to visit the sight? Why has his administration hindered possible solutions with government red tape? Why did he wait so long to meet with the families who lost their loved one in this tragedy? How could he be so out of touch that he has likened this situation to 9/11? Why has he felt that it was necessary to trash BP to the extent that the British government felt that it had become an attack, not only on their corporations, but also on their "national identity." It was construed as so insulting that President Obama had to call David Cameron to assure him that his scathing comments about 'British Petroleum' had 'nothing to do with national identity,' This as been reported in the British press.
Mr. Obama is an intelligent man but it seems that his mouth does not check in with his brain at time, when you add this to a staff that just doesn’t get it at all, you have trouble. Mr. Obama needs to get his head in the game and realize that leadership, real leadership is not just stepping in front of a teleprompter and pointing a finger.
WHERE DID THE LINE GO?
6/13/10
Politics have never been particularly civilized. There have always been accusations about candidates and elected officials and probably many of them are true. However where do we draw the line?
There doesn’t seem to be a line anymore. The line used to exclude a candidate’s family, no longer. Of course the tedious main stream press has a selection process to determine whose family will they trash and ridicule and whose family to leave alone or exalt. The farther left you are family is more likely to be exempt from ridicule. The farther right you are, well, you may be spending thousands of dollars in the future on your families psychological care.
Examples of this can be seen all the time. The Bush twins were fair game for the press, but a comment about Chelsea Clinton, or a mocking remark about the President’s daughter asking him “when is he going to stop the oil spill,” while he is shaving are off limits. This extends not only to the media. An example of this is the conduct of the formerly amusing talk show host David Letterman. He viciously went after Sarah Palin’s daughters, even the youngest. But Palin is a conservative, so it must be ok, right?
However, we see outrage of the ultra left about the “truthers” having the audacity to inquire about Mr. Obama’s citizenship but find it admirable to question if Mrs. Palin’s youngest child is actually her child or her grandchild. By the way, Mr. Obama is a citizen and the “truthers” should move on and get another issue.
The latest assault by the ultra left is that Mrs. Palin had breast implants. Whatever!
We are in two wars. We are still facing difficult economic times, thanks to this President’s lack of understanding of how a free market is suppose to work. We are in real danger from extreme Islamic terrorist groups, which the President does seem to get either.
But we are treated to ridiculous stories like the most recent Palin story. Perhaps it is time for even the tedious main stream press to keep their eye on what is important and report on that, if they remember how.
