23 April 2010
Today, that great nation has been temporarily hijacked by determined socialists and globalists who want to bring America down to the same level as the rest of the world -- socially, economically and militarily. They have made remarkable progress in a short time. Profit has become a dirty word, the heart of free enterprise, Wall Street has been reviled and redistribution of wealth is commencing apace.
But, before you start to think that you can hear the fat lady warming up, consider a couple of facts. First, this nation was born in a manner unique in history. Common folks rose up against tyranny and created an army of patriots from farmers and merchants, took on the most powerful kingdom on Earth, and won. We then experienced the worst civil war ever fought between residents of the same country, and survived, mostly intact. We then leveraged the power of the free market, exercised our freedom and became the most powerful and prosperous nation that ever existed on the face of the Earth.
We then went on to defeat our main rival in a war where both sides had the power to end all life on the planet. We were able to accomplish all this because the American dream of freedom and liberty resonate so strongly with the human spirit.
Now, we have been temporarily sidetracked by a coalition of frustrated communists, social misfits and self-hating neurotics. The progress they have made in a short period of time is remarkable and discouraging. It is understandable that this may be seen as irreversible. But only if you don't believe in the burning desire for freedom that beats in the human heart.
The new American Revolution that has started with the Tea Parties has begun in earnest and we have moved past the stage where no one is noticing it. The movement is now front and center in American politics and American life. Just as the first revolution in 1776, this one is unstoppable and will ultimately restore America to an even greater place than it was. You can count on it.
Posted by gene retske at 4/23/2010 04:47:00 AM
18 February 2010
Yes, Joe, you are surrounded by liberals who always seem to flock like geese in the Lame Stream Media. Yes, Joe, you do defend conservative principles. And, yes, Joe, we believe that you are probably a conservative at heart.
The problem is, whenever you attack a conservative, even if the criticism is justified, all you do is to encourage the gaggle of liberals around the table. They love it when a conservative goes off on a conservative. You have to remember that liberals are not concerned so much about the logic of the argument as they are about the person who made the argument in the first place. In their minds, George Bush was evil, so, if he said 'the sky is blue,' they would convince themselves that it was actually orange. And, probably related to global warming to boot.
Why don't you try this? Instead of attacking Bush, Limbaugh and other conservatives, why don't you go after the politics of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama? Not the individuals, I'm sure Obama is a hale fellow well met, but his political views are right out of "Mein Kampf." (Hitler was a socialist, you know.)
Joe, you rightly advised conservatives to spend more time advocating less government and more freedom, not knocking individuals. Why don't you take a bit of your own medicine?
12 December 2009
It is obvious that the scientists charged with studying global were personally, and financially, dedicating to proving that man is causing a global train wreck, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to avoid a disaster of massive proportions. Enough is enough. We are talking about science here.
Those who believe in the theory are anxious to declare the debate to be over, and label anyone who questions how they arrived at their conclusion to be a ‘denier,’ or worse. Science is never “settled,” as they are now trying to assert. A few facts are in order, then a proposal that will end the debate, or at least put it on a more logical and scientifically sound track.
First fact, it is completely unacceptable that one institution, rather obscure until the global warming issue, has the only set of keys to the study of climate kingdom. The email leaks show that, in their fervor to prove the global warming theory, head scientists fought the release of raw data, and deliberately deleted data rather than letting it out of their control.
Second, it is not in step with normal scientific protocol for all the data and analysis to be done in one place, by one group of people, as is the case with the global warming theory. There are claims that other study groups have reached the same conclusion independently, but when closely examined, it inevitably turns out that the data they relied on was not independently acquired, but based on the single source of data, which has now been destroyed.
Third, for a scientific conclusion, or at least, a consensus of opinion to be reached, there has to be a vigorous, no holds barred, open debate at which theories are laid out, attacked and defended. That has not happened with the global warming debate, despite the fact it is being used to turn the structure of the entire world on its ear.
How to resolve this? Here is a proposal that could change the way the global warming debate is being conducted and take the politics out of the center of the debate. Let’s allocate US$1 Billion and one calendar year to get the job done the right way. Considering what the cost estimates are for avoiding a sea change in the world’s economy, a billion does not even rise to the level of chump change. And, given the fact that we are nowhere near doing anything about it, one year is a hiccup.
We take the billion and cut it in half. One half goes to the pro global warming camp and the other half goes to the skeptics. Since any scientific debate is based on advocacy of a theory, the pro side has to put forth its theory in scientific terms. The anti side then gets to attack the theory in an attempt to prove it incorrect. Each month, there will be a debate between the two sides, broadcast live to the world, and published in print. After the 12 monthly debates, there should be a clearer understanding of the issue by everyone.
There are a lot of details to be worked out, but instead of holding a pep rally for global warming, like Copenhagen, a world wide conference to implement this scientific debate should be held.
Posted by gene retske at 12/12/2009 05:35:00 AM
24 November 2009
There has been much said about the damage Obama is creating to free enterprise, business, national security, and foreign policy. But, the real risk is far greater and could be impossible to repair later. The Great American Experiment was an incredible balancing act by our Founding Fathers. The thirteen colonies had diverse economic, social and cultural characteristics, and getting them to agree to a single national government was an amazing accomplishment.
But, it involved compromises that strained the new republic at the seams, especially as regards slavery. The strain was so great, that it ended up with eleven states seceding from the union. It took a devastating war fought within its borders resulting in heavy military and civilian casualties to reunite the United States. Wars in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries solidified the reformed country by focusing on common external enemies.
Keeping the country together through World War II, Korea, and the subsequent Cold War was relatively easy. But, since the Vietnam War, the country has continued to drift politically. We are now defined as Red States and Blue States. This is more than a distinction driven by election results; there are fundamental differences in core values. Just travel from South Carolina, one of the reddest states, to California, one of the bluest, and you will see that differences that are so vast as to be irreconcilable on issues like abortion, gun control, health care reform, separation of church and state.
Keeping an increasingly diverse 50 states together is not an easy task, and one that is not fully appreciated for its difficulty. Staying in control is a difficult job for the political leadership. It is an art, not a science, nor is keeping the country unified a given.
In many ways, 9/11 was an opportunity for America to reunite once again against a common foe. But, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the drift has begun anew. George Bush, a moderate conservative president, was able to find common ground, as did Bill Clinton, and his father. Even the feckless Jimmy Carter avoided causing deep divisions despite a very left wing orientation.
Obama is different. He has not shied in the slightest from confrontation, despite campaign rhetoric that he would re-unite the country. This nation is more deeply divided than it has been since before the Civil War. It is so bad that the governor of the second largest state, Texas, has talked openly about secession. There are secessionist movements in several states and twelve state legislatures have passed legislation re-asserting State’s rights.
Even if a unifying event such as 9/11 occurs, there is no guarantee that the nation will unite under Obama. The left and right are not in agreement as to what an appropriate response would be, so whatever he would do would further alienate one side or the other. We seem to be in a downward spiral that is without a foreseeable bottom.
If Obama continues to divide and govern as irresponsibly as he has, pushing legislation that is unpopular and locking the GOP out of the process, the political divide will continue to widen. There is no good that can come of what may be Obama’s greatest threat, failing to keep the fabric of the nation from unraveling.
Posted by gene retske at 11/24/2009 05:32:00 AM
19 November 2009
"And we believe the best way to launch [Energy Technology] is to set a fixed, long-term price on carbon — combine it with the Obama team’s impressive stimulus for green-tech — and then let the free market and innovation do the rest."And, all this time, I thought he was an avowed anti-capitalist communist. I guess I was just wrong. I should have seen the signs when he had a chapter in his book, "The World is Flat," entitled, "China for Just One Day."
Take a close look at the theme here, it is ludicrous on the surface of it -- fix the game, then let the free market work. In "The World is Flat," Friedman strikes a similar theme, if we could just have a totalitarian government for one day, we could destroy capitalism, then let the "free market" work. Friedman has the odd view that government should make a set of counter-intuitive rules and regulations before turning anything over to free market innovation. You have to read the Constitution to understand how truly wrong this is. Thomas Jefferson would scoff at this notion, as would anyone who values liberty and appreciates the importance of free markets.
But, the really disturbing thing is that many of those who share his "green" views also share his political philosophy, including, of course, Barack Obama and his minions. The good news, if there can be any in the light of an increasingly disconnected and fanatic one-party government, is that the attempt to destroy capitalism known as "cap and trade," may finally be dead. Majority Leader Harry Reid, soon to be the ex-Senator from Nevada, has delayed any debate on cap and trade until the spring. By then, we will be into the mid-term election cycle, joblessness will be approaching 12% and the country will hostile to any plan that will kill even more job growth.
The bad news is that a lot of people at the EPA read Friedman's column, and armed with a Supreme Court decision that carbon is pollution, will try to implement the scheme without Congressional approval. In fact, they are already implementing it, and threaten to accelerate the process. It will take court action to stop them before 2012, when America gives Obama what is likely to be a failing report card. In the meantime, those who care more about power over others, like Friedman, will have field day, and may nanny the rest of us to death.
The only thing that I was wrong about regarding Thomas Friedman was when I thought in his heart of hearts, he really loved America. About that, I was truly wrong.