Friday, July 12, 2019

Notre Dame Cathedral Fire Reveals White Privilege.......

.............If You're a Sanctimonious Virtue Signaling Goofball

Dear loyal readers, I apologize for my absence but I am back !  Here is a post I thought I had published but I did not., this regarding the fire at the Notre Dame cathedral earlier this year.  A letter writer felt the need to point out how superior he was because he thought about the black churches burned when the world was watching the fire in Paris.  He's so much better than the rest of us ! Definition of "virtue signaling" guys ! 

The Notre Dame Cathedral fire was not immune to the morally superior and politically correct "thought police".  One man felt the need to write the Orlando Sentinel and clarify how he, more than anyone else noticed the glaring failure of his social media friends to keep things in perspective. 

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Mueller Investigation- They Searched for Cigarettes but Hoped for Heroin

By Chuck Marshall

            The unfortunate Robert Mueller- In Charge of the Wild Goose Chase

     We should all be breathing a sigh of relief that the Mueller Investigation conjured up by the the Democrats did not reveal a treasonous president, right ?  Well, anyone watching the mass media these past two weeks knows that the Democrats are NOT relieved at all.  They are not relieved  because they weren't really looking for collusion in the first place.  They were looking for a reason to impeach President Trump and they used "collusion with a foreign government" as an excuse to keep looking under every rock for something more damaging.  Collusion with a foreign government is not illegal, it's simply inappropriate.  I liken the Mueller investigation to searching someone's home looking for cigarettes but hoping to find heroin.  They didn't find cigarettes 'nor heroin.  The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing a victory dance because the Democrats and their minions at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NYTimes, et al...  have been made to look like fools, once again. 

     So, congratulations Republicans for another win under the President you hold your nose and love;  President Donald Trump.  He continues to win and I am not tired of this economy, that's for sure.  My comfort and satisfaction in life is a consequence of a vibrant economy as it is for the majority of Americans.  The fact that Trump is a blunt speaking, unpolished, un-presidential ogre is a  minor irritation that I have learned to live with.   Neither I 'nor the vast majority of Americans is under the illusion he is another Lincoln or Reagan.  He gets things done and helps to bolster the individual's ability to succeed.  That is at least as important as eloquence, in my humble opinion.  For now, anyway.  In the end, my fellow Americans, WE are in charge. 

      I am not relieved that Trump was found innocent of treason because I never thought he was guilty in the first place.   I knew it was another example of political, partisan nonsense.   The main premise of the Mueller investigation was that Donald Trump could not have won if it were not for the Russians helping him.  How could they have helped him ?  Do they have a knack for marketing to the American public that nobody else has ?  The 2016 election had billions of dollars thrown into it,  but somehow the fact that the Russians met with Trump and they spoke with him caused his victory ?   Trump helped the Russians "stir the pot" on Facebook and Twitter because normally Americans get along fine and dandy regarding politics ?   Is it that the American public is a bunch of idiots and this time they "got it wrong" because the crafty Russians fooled us all?   It's all so mind boggling stupid.  All Americans must understand that this was not a real investigation into Trump's dealing with Russians but it was a partisan attack with the very real intent to find something to bring down a duly elected President.   No,  I'm not relieved or happy I am livid !  I am "pissed off" not for the benefit of Donald Trump but for the way our government has become a three-ring circus of liars, greed, avarice,  and clowns.  The mainstream media are the ring masters of this treasonous sedition against the American people.   

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Conservative VS Liberal - But What is it Really ?

By Chuck Marshall

This is six brief paragraphs and around 3 minutes time, but it's worth the read!

*The political labels of our times and why they need tweaking.

     I've always been annoyed with name calling, group think, and any assumptions about a group of people.  I think it's simple minded to go through life thinking everyone in any group thinks and acts in a specific way and to not consider  the complexities of a people or an issue.   Today we live in a day and age where everything is left vs right.  Conservative vs Liberal.  Republican VS Democrat.  There has even been a movement that works to make liberals "progressives" which in its very name alienates anyone who's not progressive as being "regressive".  Hardly a productive name !  As a political moderate, all of this drives me nuts.

     The title "conservative vs liberal" is used for the purpose of conversation but it inaccurately jumbles citizens into categories that they may or may not belong.  The media loves this because it enables them to label groups of people with one word and if there's anything most of today's media appreciates it's a simplified version of the reality we live.   Mostly this is because they're lazy,  but I do understand the need for a simplified reference to the two political frames of thought. 

      I contend that the terms used today are no longer valid.   Today it's  "conservatives vs liberals",  but to more clearly define what it is we're referring to this won't work anymore.   The word conservative implies "one who does NOT want change" and the word liberal implies "one who DOES want change",  but that's hardly the case today.    In reference to the government it could easily be argued that "liberals" tend to want a lot to stay the same !  Witness how they've  been fighting to keep Trump from removing the "powers that be" in Washington, DC.  Love him or hate him, he is no friend of anyone with power in our nation's capitol.  (This, IMHO,  is why so many "conservatives" support him,  regardless of his appalling personal habits).  Conservatives want to see a lot change.  They see the government's power as out of control and in need of great change.

     So what do we call them then ?   "Liberals" want to enable government to fix things  more.  They are much more likely to see the government as the solution to problems.  They feel the government can "level the playing field",  and that it can "redistribute wealth" and it can effectively enact laws that forbid bad things like discrimination.  "Conservatives" think the government is the cause of most problems.   They see it as inept.  They see it as tax & spending machine.  They see it is a dangerous entity that is fully capable of taking away individual rights in the name of  "fixing things".   So if you boil it all down and remove all the innuendo, hatred, and false assumptions then you have two groups of people that want things to get better, they just see a different path to get to the goals of making things better.  The "liberals" see the government as the solution.  The "conservatives" see the government as the problem.  In my mind I think of it as "Stateism" VS "Individualism" or perhaps "Stateists and Individualists".

     I've always considered my political leanings to tend towards the "Individualism",  but as I read a lot of the policies of JFK and reflect on his Presidency (personal flaws, not withstanding)  I'm really pretty close to his opinions and approach to governing for the early 1960's even though he was more of a "Stateist".  Why ?  Because he tended towards the middle in the grand scheme of things.  Also, the things he wanted to change back then- civil rights is one example- were things that DID need to change.  Being a "stateist" meant something else back  then.

     For most citizens of any political persuasion, I think and firmly believe they want what's best for all of us.  Their anger is towards the "powers that be".  They feel passion for the "little guy", whoever that might be in their mind.  I have those same feelings.  I can't stand the idea of anyone, through government or through free enterprise getting an unfair advantage or ill gotten favor just because of their position and inherited power.  So there you have it, the "Stateists" and the "Individualists" fighting for the right cause.  If the two can come together and compromise- understanding and sincerely believing the other has their heart in the right place,  there is nothing that can't be accomplished.  I love the quote JFK made shown above in this blog "Forgive your enemies but never forget their names".  We do have an enemy today lurking amongst us in the United States of America, but it's neither the stateists 'nor the individualists.  Can you guess who it is ?


Thursday, February 7, 2019

Journalism = Democratic Party

By Chuck Marshall

     Today I announce the death of journalism.  What we have is the mouthpiece for the Democratic party, not journalists.  Today we have partisan nonsense spewing from nearly every source of news skewed, in 90% of all instances, to the left and in full embrace with the Democratic party.  No matter your politics, no matter  your beliefs, you cannot tell me that's not true.  In addition, anyone that cares to hear both sides and understand the fairness of allowing dialogue is not getting that today.  Anyone that wants to read the news and hear the facts and truth, not tinted with Democratic ideals and beliefs will not receive it. 

     Yesterday, the Orlando Sentinel printed the headline for Trump's state of the unions speech.  I was appalled at the partisan nature of a "news piece".  A source of news that I generally trust is now in doubt. 

     Of course I wrote a letter about it !!  They did not print it as of today.  Here it is and I repeated their headline to them with one small addition in the subject line.

"Trump Calls for End to Politcal Stalemate, but...."

Thanks for the headline article on Donald Trump's speech on today's front page.  Are the writers of this article members of the DNC ?  It certainly seemed like it.  It only took two small paragraphs to get to the line that the rancor in DC was "cultivated by Trump"- translation- DC was just fine before Trump arrived ?    Later it elaborated that Trump's comments regarding more women in the workforce than ever before "was due to population increase not something that could be accredited to any of Trump's policies".   I'm sure Economics is not required in journalism school, however it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to recognize a vibrant economy is a cause for increase in employment for all of us  and you can have more people but much less employment.  Anyone not sure about this might review the Great Depression or modern day Venezuela.  These are just  two examples of the most obvious opinions uttered in this "news piece".  I can only imagine the other innuendos lurking around if I actually knew all the facts according to how the Democrats want to see them.  I agree with the President that partisan politics needs to stop for the good of our nation and I'd like to suggest it start with those whom we should all be able to trust with an honest take on what's happening.  The media.       


Thursday, December 13, 2018

United Nations Resolution to Open Borders ?

     By Chuck Marshall

*The essence of the first paragraph below was published in the Orlando Sentinel today. 

     It was headlined in the media that the United Nations has established a compact encouraging more orderly movement of migrants.  Specifically, the Associated Press stated;   "US Not Among 164 Nations to Back Migration Proposal".    I don't pretend to know the details of what is being declared on this "nonbinding" compact.,  but I can certainly imagine it reduces any burden the United Nations might have to actually fix something.   No, they won't go after abusive and oppressive governments to build up Democracy and/or free markets to encourage prosperity, but they sure have no problem telling "rich"nations that they need to start taking in more people who are looking for more "economic opportunities".  After all,  the "rich"nations are "aging"and we need young people from third world countries if we have any hope to survive.

     I have a problem with this line of thinking.

1)  I thought the United Nations was established to keep the peace not re-organize the world's economic wealth.

2)  Shouldn't the "rich" nations be working on boosting their own populations and helping their own poor people rather than opening their borders in order to help incompetent governments go on governing ?  By exporting their more desperate citizens they not only fail their citizens but they also dilute and distract from endeavors to successfully eliminate poverty in the rich nations.   

3)  How is opening the doors for citizens from failed governments and allowing them to go to successful nations doing anything other than dragging down the success of the existing successful governments ?  Eventually, they too will be poor and the abject poverty and oppression of the failed country will move throughout the world like a cancer infecting all to the idea of poverty and want such that no corner of the world will be prosperous.

4)  The idea that the only way citizens of poverty stricken countries can possibly succeed is if they move into  wealthier "whiter" countries is highly bigoted in that it is implied that certain races are simply incapable of lifting themselves or their country out of poverty.