WORDS MEAN SOMETHING--OR DO THEY?

"Don't take a fence down until you know why it was put up" G. K. Chesterton

As a conservative this is one of my favorite quotes, because as a conservative I'm more of a traditionalist not willing to invest my time fixing things that are not broken. Liberals on the other hand seem to see most things as in a state of flux. Everything progresses. (Progressives?) The most significant example would be their vision of a flexible, free-flowing, malleable Constitution. An example of lesser significance in the big picture, but something we encounter every day, is taking words with perfectly functional definitions and changing them to achieve a particular political outcome. For example, let's look at the Google definition of the word "minority."

Minority: the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

Consider that definition and think about where our politicians and media spend much of their time:

African-Americans comprise 14% of the US population. Any time been spent lately on this minority segment of our society? Watching politicians dance around and cower in fear over 14% would make one think they're not too bright in the math department.

Self-proclaimed members of the LGBT community number approximately 4%. My guess is less than half would get married, if permitted. So for 2% of the population we should change the traditional meaning of the word marriage? Politicians are stumbling all over themselves to get on that band wagon

Hourly workers making minimum wage are under 3%. For 3% the government gets involved in what is strictly the business of the business (paying workers what they are worth). Messing with the natural order of economics for a handful of people affects the pay of every level in the business, the price of product and potentially suppressing hiring levels. Does that upheaval seem worth it to pass, at best, feel good legislation?

Living below the government imposed poverty line are 15% of us. In the 50 years since the inception of the "War On Poverty" U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. How are we doing? Looks good though, doesn't it?

Amount spent annually in the U.S. on the "War On Drugs" is more than $51 billion.

This amount is spent on 9.4 percent of the population aged 12 or older who are current (past month) illicit drug users. When you consider that expenditure on so poor an outcome, maybe we should add Congress to the drug numbers.

English is spoken in 80% of homes, so for 20% of non English speakers we should all be "Pressing 1 for English"?

We are tip-toeing around the 0.6 % of Muslims in the US, and acquiescing to every demand by the 1.6 % of Atheists. Just the other day a Massachusetts school board banned the term "Christmas Break" and substituted "Holiday Break." This change occurred because of a complaint by one family even though the board had received a petition with more than 4000 signatures to keep "Christmas Break!" You can't make this stuff up.

I certainly do not mean we should not address the needs of minorities; of course we should, but not at the expense of the majority. We must remember this country runs on the hard work, productivity, creativeness, risk-taking, and self-responsibility of the majority. Caring for the majority makes sense if for no other reason other than the fact that there are more of them. This is what I mean when I say certain members of our society may wish to disregard/redefine the meaning of the word MINORITY. They seem to have redefined it as :

Minority: the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number but one to be positioned for the low information voter as a large number for political advantage when possible.

So, who is this overlooked majority?

The population of the US is made up of 78% white, 78.5% Christians, 96% heterosexual, 85% fiscally sound, 91% drug free, 89 % English speakers

Sure, that group seems to have all they need and the system seems to be rigged for the white, Christian,, English speaking, financially solvent, heterosexual and that's the way it should be because they are the MAJORITY.

The Left often laments the money spent on war and declares it could be better spent at home. How about if we drastically cut the money spent on our home "wars" on poverty and drugs and pump that money back into the productive majority?

Again, the minority must be cared for, but to what degree with a finite amount of money. This is where the left and right part ways; What is the mission of government? Should it be run primarily as a business, or should it be run primarily as an adult care center?

Everyone of us has been, or will be, a some point in our lives, a minority. I'm in the "old' category. Only 14% of the US population is over 65, so each year I fade further out of anybody’s demographics. I don't expect to be catered to with advertising, movies, TV, songs, electronics, etc. In their mind I'm not worth it. Money, time and energy are best spent on the 86% of people who will use the products and services, now and in the future. I understand that, I accept it, and I hope other minorities can see more clearly and accept their place in the big picture.

I guess I'm just one of those who cling to the familiar, age old, definition of minority . Oops! Looks like I'm in another minority.

MINI MERICA

Think of this like the TV show "Lost." A plane crashed on an island with 100 people aboard; all survive. No one finds them for years .They quickly realize they will have to bring some organization to their little community if they are to make it for the long run.

The lucky 100 analyze their skills and carefully break into two distinct groups. The "Providers" and the "Administrators." The Providers provide. They hunt, make and distribute what the groups needs to survive. The Administrators administer. They take over the work the Providers are too busy providing to do. They cut walking paths between various groupings, they carry messages and knowledge from one group of Providers to another, and they oversee security for the groups.

Since the Administrators produce nothing, they have nothing. In order for the Providers to be able to do what they do best, they pay a portion of their gains to the Administrators for the Administrator's services. They usually pay in Elk burgers--a percentage of their hunt. Those successful hunters pay more than those who are unskilled or down right lazy. As it works out about 43% of the Providers, while absorbing the bulk of the Administrators time and burgers, pay no burgers at all.

The unproductive Administrators, because no one ever set a limit on their assisting in an unproductive capacity, have been "serving" the Providers for years. Over those years they have slowly chipped away at what should be the exclusive rights of the productive Providers. Before long the unproductive Administrators were telling the productive Providers where and when they could hunt, and what weapons they could use. They also raised the burger count required from the productive Providers to give to the unproductive Administrators so the unproductive Administrators, after they have taken their share, could give the remainder to the non productive Providers.

Since there were so many non productive Providers now able to sit around all day telling stories, making babies and eating the rewards of others' hard work, the unproductive Administrators found it necessary to redistribute the burgers and require more from the 10% of productive Providers who the unproductive Administrators determined were living high off the Elk, as it were. The productive Providers then began to wonder why they were busting their humps when they could just tell stories and do that baby making thing, and be almost as well off?

The unproductive Administrators were able to get away with this seeming unfair distribution because the non productive Providers very much related to the unproductive Administrators (who also lived off the the 57% of the productive Providers) and therefore backed every activity the unproductive Administrators proposed.

Since the 100 survivors followed the general religious population in the US, almost 80 were Christians, 2 were Jews, 2 were Atheist, 2 were Agnostic, 1 was Muslim and 13 had no religious ties at all. Our Muslim friend, we can call him Hussein, was devout and chose to follow Mohammed's teaching to the letter, so he began beheading Christians. There were plenty Christians and nobody was looking out for them anyway. The unproductive Administrators, having no real skills in anything, were not sure what to do. All they knew is they didn't want to seem heavy handed on such a minority, so they sent him a strongly worded letter asking him not to do it again. He did--down to 77 Christians.

The remaining 77 Christians wanted to put crosses by their shacks but the 2 Atheists complained-- so much for the crosses.

Out of the 97 remaining survivors, 4 were proud members of the LGBT community. The unproductive Administrators, again scared to death of offending ANY minority, gave the 4 pretty much anything they wanted.

There were also 3 people who when providing very menial help to the productive Providers after the hunt (burying the entrails, etc.), were paid one burger per hour. They complained, and since they were also a minority, (and who seems to have more power than a minority), the unproductive Administrators required the productive Providers give them 3 burgers per hour whether they were worth it or not. This was not too big of a deal for the productive Providers because they just developed an automated digging tool and fired all the low-skilled help and didn't have to hire anyone new. This didn't bother the fired workers either because the unproductive Administrators gave them 1 1/2 burgers (taken by law from the few remaining productive Providers) for 99 weeks.

You would really have to wonder how a society organized and performing like this could possibly survive--so do I.

THE REALITIES OF RACISM

                            Why we vehemently defend President Obama

He is subjected to a level of disrespect, treachery, betrayal and sabotage from within that no other president has ever experienced. Still he succeeds and his success makes American lives better.

Facebook posting

Buried in this Liberal posting I found on Facebook is the underlying, and quickly becoming very annoying, theme of racism. These mid-term elections have found the candidates, most worried about losing one of the cushiest jobs in America, are back to pulling the race card out of a well worn deck. Let's just take a trip back in time, short time, to see if , "no other president has ever experienced," the Obama level of disrespect.

There was so much disrespect for President Bush, they came up with a name for it, the "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It began with the left's belief that Bush was an illegitimate president, stemming from the bitterly contested results of the 2000 election. Inauguration Day protesters wielded "Hail to the Thief" signs and chanted "Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Bush and Cheney go away!" "We want Bush out of D.C." and, "You're not our president."

Michael Moore's 2004 film Fahrenheit 9/11 mixed making fun of Bush with a poop load of conspiracy theories concerning the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family. In 2006, the movie Death of a President, a mockumentary of sorts, purported to follow the investigation of the unsolved assassination of George W. Bush. (Get that, a movie about the assassination of a sitting president. Try that today.) The Liberal entertainment industry loved any Bush bashing and gave Death of a President the International Critics Prize at the Toronto Film Festival, and Moore's film the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

The intellectual elite didn't want to miss getting a piece of Bush. The 2005 winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, British playwright Harold Pinter,  wrote, "The Bush administration is the most dangerous force that has ever existed. It is more dangerous than Nazi Germany because of the range and depth of its activities and intentions worldwide." When Nobel Peace Prize Winner Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, in the keynote speech at a Peace Conference in Dallas, said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don't mean that. I mean—how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would LOVE to be able to do that." That, my friends , was the PEACE prize winner.

While these intellectually superior folks were vomiting this hatred, the common folks were at anti-Bush rallies with signs that read : "Bush = Satan," "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush," "Hang Bush for War Crimes," "End the Illegal Occupation in the White House," "Bush is the Disease, Death is the Cure," "Bush is the only Dope worth Shooting," "Death to Extremist Christian Terrorist Pig Bush," and "Kill Terrorists, Bomb Their House, Kill Bush, Bomb His F---in House." While of course calling him little endearing names such as: Shrub, Bushie, and Junior, while comparing the president to Hitler and calling for his impeachment ,

Not to be left out some "local" voices were also heard from. " MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann called Bush a fascist on air, while Moveon.org conducted an online advertising contest where two contributors offered Bush = Hitler comparisons. Harry Belafonte traveled to Venezuela and called President Bush the".. greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world.." Then there was anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan who compared President Bush with bin Laden. Lest we forget the Dixie Chicks in London saying they were ashamed that President Bush was from Texas.

Wrapping up the " disrespect, treachery, betrayal and sabotage" Bush experienced, he was also blamed by the extreme left as having caused Hurricane Katrina and being responsible for 9/11. All the while President Bush was the subject of comedian's "dumb" jokes even though he had degrees from Harvard and Yale and was a trained fighter pilot.

All of this I think we could safely call "disrespect," and President George W. Bush was, and still is, WHITE!

Of course there are some people who do not like the President because he is black. I'm also sure there are some people who didn't like Bush because he's white. Those are outliers. I sometimes feel bad for myself because when somebody doesn't like who I am, what I do, or what I say, as a while male I have nothing to blame it on. (I am now aging myself into a minority, and that will take the pressure off some what.)

Let's look at some obvious race facts:

In 2008 Barack Obama won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976. A remarkable 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites. What aspect of racism is that?

If anyone says racism swirls around Obama, I will agree, but it's the kind I'm sure he counted on. Consider that 93% of   African-American voted for Obama the second term, down 2 percentage points from 2008, with 96 percent of black women supporting him. Now, that's racism. 

The Liberal who posted the words at the top of this post, when confronted with a fact or two said basically it didn't matter because she voted with her heart. I think voting with one's heart is good when voting for American Idol, but when you are voting for the leader of the free world, maybe a fact or two should be considered. Liberals lead with emotion. Having a black president, even with limited experience and a sketchy past, feels good, and being consistent with the times, if it feels good, let's do it.

Please Liberals, stop calling racism at every Obama criticism. He has been disrespected no more than every other president. Let's face it, about half the people in the United States at any one time will not have their president in power. The current president happens to have a built in excuse generator, but all of the Conservatives I know don't care if President Obama is black, white or orange. We sincerely believe he is a poor leader and his policies are detrimental to America. That's it.

I contend Barack Obama won the presidency, not in spite of being black, but because he is black. Maybe Liberals should ease off, racism may not be their enemy.