Friday, March 30, 2012

What’s My Problem with Ann Coulter

It has become crystal clear that Ann Coulter has become one of the strongest advocates of Mitt Romney. I am just grateful that after so many endless months of Romney supporters calling into talk shows, local and national alike, declaring him a stout unwavering conservative that they were finally been called out for what they are; seminar callers. And since then they have either stopped or not made the air.

What I am not grateful for is Ann Coulter’s blind faith in the qualities of a man few can understand. In qualities yet to be determined and far from proven. I imagine that at some point Ann Coulter must have crossed paths with Mitt Romney. Upon resting her eyes on his impressive frame she certainly raised the back of her hand to her forehead swooned and declare, “Goodness gracious has ever so handsome of man graced our blessed shores?” Looking to impress she must have commanded her handmaiden to tighten up her corset, cutting off flow to her brain.

There is no greater example of her loss of mental facilities than her her rant of February 22nd in support of fore mentioned candidate.

First of all Ms. Coulter I would be interested in where you came up with your definition for the republican establishment. If you want to redefine what the general public senses as the establishment, first you have to define what they perceive as the establishment, something I will attempt here. Then you have to tell us why the current view is wrong and why your definition is the truly accurate view. Perhaps too many mental gymnastics for your age.

To suggest that talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative pundits who regularly rail against the republican establishment, are said establishment is more than specious. You’ve stepped into the looking glass, jumped down the rabbit hole and taken a leap over the coo-coos nest Ms. Coulter.

What I, conservatives and anyone else taken an honest look at the politics of today, consider the establishment is hard to identify but not nearly as hard to define. In its most simple definition the establishment are those who believe government can solve our problems. They are those who are attempting to stifle tea party representatives and senators. They are those who constantly chase the approval of the press.

The establishment is made up of layer upon layer of inbred generations of bureaucrats, lobbyists and the elected officials who feed them like the loyal pets that they are, members of their very household. All being sustained by contributions from the independently wealthy old money and corporations that feed them in kind from the same trough, who profit off the actions of our government and share that profit in kind.

And the establishment includes those of the highest ideals who listening to the siren call of big government, swept with the delusion that only they can save the people, dashed their values and integrity upon the rocky shores of tyranny. And it is Mitt Romney’s apparent blindness to the dangers of big government that scare conservatives the most. When questioned over basic conservative ideals he has that deer caught in the headlights stare and fumbles over his reasoning.

And be careful who you are calling moron’s Ms. Coulter. The idea that only Mitt Romney can defeat Barack Hussein Obama is …moronic.

Anyone the republican presidential candidates have a very good chance to beat Obama. A wet blanket would beat Obama if there were any integrity in the mainstream media. But maybe Ms. Coulter you believe the public cannot see beyond the nonsensical idol worship offered by the media. That the public can’t see beyond Obama’s swagger and charisma. But that the public will see beyond Romney’s Mormonism that will firstly be portrayed as racist before the really hateful attacks begin.

Can the public will see beyond the unusual beliefs and practices and accusations that they are seeking to control the government? This kind of accusation and hate is already all over Christian TV and radio. A daily double win for the mainstream as they can attack Christianity in one breadth, ridiculing their attacks, attacks they will describe in great detail, and then end with comments such as, “Well who really knows what’s true?” or “One’s religion shouldn’t be a litmus test, or should it?” Thereby, after ridiculing the accusations, suggesting they are true in the next.

So Ms. Coulter, all that bigotry the public can see past but not the pompous promotions of our President by the media and his smooth teleprompted words as our nation takes the fast lane to global insignificance for all to see?

Oh how I would have loved to see Herman Cain debate Obama, telling our President what his father always said, those pearls of homespun wisdom that have disappeared from our black communities. A real black man speaking truth to power. And what happened to all the calls for the simplification of the tax code now that endorsements pile on for Romney?

I would love to see Newt Gingrich tear Obama apart on any topic in a debate. Of course if he won the nomination debates would be labeled as trivial and base, the ugly side of politics, by the powers to be and there simply wouldn’t be any.

Ron Paul has his issues but could still win against our do nothing but tear down this country President. And of course Rick Santorum is well qualified. And speaking to Romney being the establishment candidate, on the fast track, why hasn’t the point been made that winning Pennsylvania, Santorum’s home state, would go a long way to winning the presidency?

The only conservative idea I have been able to understand from Romney is that he believes all big government spending should be passed off to the states. The problem is that it would all still be there waiting for the federal government to sweep back in and heroically save the masses of disfranchised citizens that the left claims make up this nation.

Mitt Romney may make a very good president. I believe he is a good man and, as Ted Nugent believes, that is a crucial requirement for me in a president. I will vote for him if he is the nominee. But Rick Santorum can also easily defeat Obama, is a good man and I believe much more of a conservative than Mitt Romney.

I hope you can get past this delusion you are under Ms. Coulter. This puppy love (perhaps puppy is too weak of a word) fro Mitt Romney that has produced this detachment from reality will hopefully pass. And if I thought changing your hair color would make a difference I would suggest that. But may I suggest a short exercise that may help you in this condition.

Repeat after me. “Anyone can beat Obama. Anyone can beat Obama. Anyone can beat Obama.”

Being so easily influenced Ms. Coulter perhaps you recognize imitation of your own sarcastic style as the highest form of flattery. And if truly flattered you should buy my book, though after reading your post of February 22nd I have no intention of buying any of your books, and give me your endorsement. I can send you a picture if that would help.

You might like my first book better.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Twitter; The Micro Blog …Not!

When Magellan completed his circumnavigation of the earth there must have been many anxious political and economic interests who would have given an arm and a leg to get hold of his ship’s log. Imagine the horror, the complete disbelief that would have swept their hearts and souls if they had found large portions of this groundbreaking, or perhaps waterbreaking would be a more appropriate expression, documentation missing.

“Magellan! Where are all these missing pages to your ships log?” they would surely have exclaimed.

“Well,” Magellan would possibly answer, “some of the crew disapproved of some of my portrayal of our experience. They thought it insensitive to the idol worshipping, sexually free, cannibalistic cultures we experienced and found the imperialistic goals of our voyage socially irresponsible. So I tore out all related pages and burned them.”

So it is with Twitter.

Just the other day I read several reports about rumors of a coup in Red China. I immediately thought of my prediction last Summer that Red China would be no more, would break apart within a year. So I  went to my Twitter account interested in the exact date I made my prediction. But my tweet was no where to be found. I thought I had seen it even a few months past, long after it was posted. Could it have been scrubbed off the Internet due to the rumors of coup? As Red China sanitizes their own corner of the Internet of any and all references to any possible unrest, could they be doing the same across the United States and the rest of the world?

This is far from my first Tweet to disappear. Actually several of my first Tweets were removed and I offered some criticism on that occasion. The benign nature of what disappears sometimes baffles me, as does what doesn’t.

My Tweet, that I didn’t find the Herman Cain smoking man campaign commercial strange, was gone almost immediately. The only thing strange about the add was the wimpy little drag the smoking man took on his cigarette. Not that I smoke or think people should smoke, I would be happy if no one smokes, but if your going to make a statement that the government should stay out of the personally lives of its citizens …then make a statement. Take a good strong drag and fill that screen with smoke.

But my predictions for Red China are spelled out in several posts over the last year or two. My more precise prediction, in reference to timing, however is gone; removed by Twitter without notice and for reasons undisclosed. If the downfall of communist China as we know it does occur this summer, where can I seek restitution for being denying prophetic status?

More seriously, the idea that a business, a government, even a government not our own, or any group could work, either through official channels or covert actions by agents of fore said organizations posing as generic Internet users, can shape the debate, the flow of free speech, on the Internet is disturbing. But what can be done?

One needs to evaluate the role of technology in their life. We all need to place our trust in things that are proven; trusted institutions and individuals. The integrity of such institutions,centered around the religious foundations of our society, are the foundation for everything we consider civilized. But even our institutions have become corrupt, tools of propaganda; the media, academia and unions to name a few. We are subject to the failed dogmas of socialism and the faulty science behind manmade global warming. This is why people such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and even Glenn Beck, along with many local counterparts, hold so much sway over public debate. Few others can be trusted.

Twitter is not an institution. It is a machine and the operators, official and hidden manipulators, prefer to remain ambiguous.

What inflames me about how Twitter portrays itself is that they advertise themselves as a micro blog. Blog being short for ‘web log.’ A log suggests that a standing record is being kept. This is not the case. Twitter is simply a mass texting tool. A promotion platform that can provide instantaneous access to those one wishes to follow, for personal, professional, political or business insight or collaboration.

Even more unfortunate than Twitter not being what it claims, is the fact that it can be so easily manipulated by those seeking to oppress, take advantage of, or misrepresent others.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Kony 2012; Why the United Nations Should Be Disband

A single independent film maker has created a short documentary for you/tube “Kony 2012” calling the world to action; to end the ruthless rebel’s crimes against humanity. Kony’s actions are indeed despicable resembling those of the insane criminal Charles Manson. A man who committed the unimaginable and intolerable, who was swiftly brought to justice here in the United States. The fore mentioned short film rightly portrays the similarities and brings the horrific realities of this tragedy in Africa to light. And we all should be horrified and be demanding action.

The problem is it is a bit too much too late. The film has been judged lacking complete transparency. Kony is no longer in Uganda and the worst of the tragedy has subsided as his forces begin to dwindle.

This does not dilute the seriousness of the atrocities still being committed but why did it take an independent movie maker and a social media free of the influence of the mainstream media to bring this issue to the fore front of the public’s mind?

I suggested some time back that this is exactly the kind of pressure the media and Hollywood should be exerting against North Korea as the most brutal and oppressive nation in the world. China could also use similar pressure. Such stories unfortunately don’t fit with the pop culture dominated citizenry our media has created.

Are not these issues of human rights and crimes against humanity something the United Nations was formed to bring an end to? It is not that the U.N. was unaware of Kony but that they failed to bring an end to his terror in a quick and decisive manor. The fact that Kony has never been apprehended is a glaring testament to the complete incompetence of the U.N.

But what can one expect of an organization consisting predominantly of dictators and tyrants. How can proper political moral fortitude, if such a thing can possibly exist, survive in an environment where such murderers are recognized, validated and legitimacy given to their voices?

There is only one moral standard for this world and its simplest expression is expressed in the Ten Commandments and other basic teachings found in the various religions of the world. There are no variations per culture that tolerate oppression, torture and murder of a nations citizenry that we need to accommodate, though our executive branch would want us to think there are in regards to China.

If we look at Africa, it is the African Union that is working with greater effect than the U.N. to solve the human rights and political conflicts on their continent. It was NATO and not the U.N. that brought down Kaddafi. The U.N is powerless to help the Syrian people as they are being attacked and murdered by there government.

If a world organization cannot be formed around a common moral standard it cannot act. Perhaps such an organization should be less concerned about building up its own ego, self worth, be bringing in any and all who claim themselves a sovereign nation and more concerned about the moral standards who seek to be apart.

And what of the rights of women? Do women have any significant representation in the U.N. as they as a group are one of the most oppressed in the world. I have always said, and others have expressed similar opinions, that women’s rights issues are the way to stem radical Islam.

The U.N. has no solid moral code. Our own nation confused now by political correctness, the rationalization for the moral failings of the baby boomers in their sexual revolution and the now blooming homosexual agenda, an attack on our values by atheistic materialism, has left this nation powerless to take a lead in what needs to be done. It has left this nation powerless to represent a political system that can address the valid moral concerns of the Muslim world as they pursue freedom themselves.

But it is no surprise that NATO, the member nations sharing a common religious foundation, has been able to act in a consistent fashion, upholding human dignity and freedom as best as can be expected in areas of conflict. Or that the African Union can respond more directly and clearly than the U.N., seeking to establish respectability for their continent and its nations after hundreds of years of being looked down upon as backward and corrupt by the rest of the world.

If the U.N. cannot be reorganized around common values and the goal of freedom and prosperity for all the ‘citizenry of its member nations then it should be disbanded. The power of the Internet, the removal of all boundaries between ‘peoples’ and the exposure and potential exposure of the crimes of any and all governments should empower the U.N. to achieve freedom and prosperity for all people if that were its goal and if the criminal and oppressive factions of the U.N. were not empowered to stop any actions they do not agree with; namely China and to some degree Russia.

In this climate brought about by great advances in technology is igniting the light of freedom ion the hearts of all men why should such an organization such as the U.N., supposedly committed the human rights and freedom, include nations small or large, such as China, who oppress and murder their own people? How would an organization holding such standards, that they would refuse to tolerate such atrocities in its members, act in the face of murderous warlords such as Kony, or the murderous oppression Syria is inflicting on its own people? What changes would nations voluntarily make to be included in such an organization or face its wrath, even if that meant merely economic seclusion?

The status quo is failing, as is this nation in its ability to offer leadership as few seem capable of distinguishing between right from wrong.