Wednesday, November 09, 2011
On this the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I feel it is highly appropriate to launch the inaugural posting of "The Brother on the Right". The objective of this blog is to give a voice to many black conservatives who don't feel that there are enough of us out there to stand up and be counted.
In reality, there are many of us out here it's just that we are hidden among the numbers of liberals or progressives as they've gone to calling themselves lately. Since we are black, upwardly mobile, intelligent and articulate or to put it more simply, since we are "black" it is generally assumed that we are therefore democrat and of course liberal.
Wrong! In fact, my sense is that many more blacks (notice the absense of "African-American" I address that in the video) are actually conservative than they realize. That was how I came to realize that I was conservative after all. In fact, when you take my little quiz below I think you may also realize some seeds of conservatism in yourself as well.
Don't be afraid, the quiz won't hurt you or convert you. It's there to help you realize your own God given potential and your constitutional rights as an American born in the land of the free and the home of the brave. When you take the quiz, if you answer yes to 85% or more of the questions, you just may be a budding conservative. Don't be angry, rejoice and be glad! There is much to be happy about as a conservative!
What exactly does it mean to be a conservative? Well my quiz below will give some serious insight into that question. Let me first state what it does not mean. It does not mean that you are now a part of some mean spirited right wing that has no compassion for your fellow human being. It does not mean that you blindly follow the thoughts and opinions of any republican or conservative leadership. It does not mean that you see no need whatsoever for an efficient and effective federal government. It doesn't mean that you dislike all gays or homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. It does not mean that you dislike all people who are on government assistance or support.
In fact friends, being a conservative means the exact opposite of all of those things. We believe that our best years as a nation are ahead of us. We believe in rugged individualism and the pursuit of prosperity. We believe in a strong free market economy. We believe in holding all of our leaders accountable for their actions and decisions. We believe in an efficient federal government and tax system that sets the stage for economic growth and prosperity.
We believe in equal rights so that all Americans regarding of their backgrounds or orientations can flourish in this the greatest country in the history of mankind. We believe that the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King is being realized every day in this country and that much more of it is yet to be realized. We believe in less governmental programs and bloat and more individual creativity and genius. We believe that the capitalist system and only the capitalist system is the best system for bringing out the best in all of us.
We believe in a strong military that protects our interests all of the world as well as helps to protect the weak. We believe in promoting democracy as a form of government and not fascism, dictatorships, communism or socialism. We believe "In God We Trust" and that our country is at its best when we keep God included in our belief systems. We believe in lower taxes on all Americans and corporations as the best means to increase and sustain economic growth in this country.
Friends, like President Ronald Reagan, we look forward to the future with optimism and a spirit of enthusiasm. As conservative Americans we believe that we have the finest country that mankind has ever seen and it is worth defending the principles and values that made us the country that all other peoples of the world look to for answers and support.
I understand your dilemma however. As a black conservative you probably get a lot and I mean a LOT of angry looks if you even act like you support any conservative principles. I've lost a few friends because I dared to think independently for myself and not blindly subscribe to whatever radio talks show hosts or the good Reverends have to say. How dare I not agree with Jesse or Al? It's tantamount to moral blasphemy to disagree with our self appointed leaders who are supposed to do all of our thinking for us.
They would have us believe that God gave them all of the collective black brain cells and that the rest of us are robots who should blindly follow their edicts from their radio shows. "What do you mean we don't need bigger government and more programs to get us out of this rut? Who do you think you are?" They'd have us believe that without them fighting for more programs us poor black folk couldn't do anything without them.
Friends, its time to think for ourselves. Realize that God gave YOU a brain and he gave it to you to use; not wait to hear what Jesse has to say. That's why Bill Cosby called us "intellectually lazy" and he was right. Dead on right.
So take the quiz. Give honest answers to the questions, and I think we may soon discover that we have a few black conservatives in the closet!
Do you favor lower taxes which means more $ in your pocket and less in the governments? Who is more capable of making important financial decisions for your family? You or the government? Do you favor a medical savings account that allows you to put aside money (in an interest bearing account) for unplanned medical expenses or do you need the government to solve your medical problems?
Do you favor broad tax cuts for corporations which will motivate them to invest in jobs and grow their businesses thereby strengthening the economy? Should the USA run from terrorism or stand up to it as a strong undivided front? Do you favor allowing the US to be pushed around by the international community?
Would you be willing to allow for oil exploration to reduce our nations dependence on foreign oil? Do you want strong, effective border control or are you ok with anyone crossing our borders at anytime? Should illegal aliens be allowed to put a strain on our infrastructure with no means of documenting them and taxing their income?
Are you ok with working harder and harder to make less and as the government continues rampant spending and tax hikes? Do you like having to get up and go to work everyday to support unmotivated individuals who don't want to get up and go to work?
Are more and bigger government programs the answer or should we allow the capitalist system to do its job? Do you favor a socialized health care system (similar to Canada and the UK) which means you may have to wait up to 6 months to see a doctor? (that you can't choose). Do you favor abortion over adoption?
Should members of Congress have term limits like the President does? Should we continue our insatiable focus on identification of ethnicities and races in America?
Should we all just be Americans or do we need to continue to sub-identify ourselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc? Who is more capable of determining your family's future, you or an elected official? Do elected officials, i.e. "The Government" know what's best for you and your family?
Is the role of government to "set the stage for individual achievement", "create the environment for success" or make sure that there's a "chicken in every pot." Be careful: one scenario sets us up for unlimited success as a nation and the other sets us up for mediocrity. If you're a minority do you attribute your success to Affirmative Action programs or to receiving God's Favor and making the most of your God-given potential? Would Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. support large government programs and redistribution of wealth or creating an environment where everyone is playing on a level playing field?
Should we restrict oil exploration so that we don't inconvenience our furry friends? In other words should we pay higher prices at the pump and remain dependent upon Arab oil in order to keep things comfy for the squirrels? Should the United States maintain a strong and active defense or retreat behind our oceanic borders and hope no one bothers us here? Is the United States an active force for good in this world or are we the cause of the world's problems and should be sorry for all that we've done?
Are we right to remove prayer from the schools, "Christ" from Christmas, scripture readings and verses from statehouse steps, and to attempt to disassociate our nation from all that is Godly? Do you agree with a former Vice-President who is so concerned with global warming that he is compelled to fly around the world in a private jet and arrive by stretch limousine to tell us all that we are consuming too much fuel? Do you also agree with him when after all his globe trotting he goes home to a mega-mansion (heated by pine needles, I guess) to plan his next excursion?
Do our self appointed black leaders (no names here but their initials are Jesse and Al) know what is best for the black, oops African American community? Have all the government programs they say we need actually helped anybody? I guess we should thank them that there is less gang violence, black on black crime, drug use and teenage pregnancy...oh, that's right there isn't less, it seems like more to me!
As a minority, have most of the bad or disappointing things that have happened to you been as a result of your own lack of preparation or diligence or something that "The Man" did to you? Have the good things happened as a result of your preparation and hard work or because a government program did it for you?
Are you capable of thinking for yourself or do you need the government or Rev. so and so to tell you what to think? Do you have an optimistic outlook on the future of our people and believe that our best years are head of us?
Roderick Armstrong is a veteran of the US Army and a successful businessman and real estate investor.
He has been blessed with many diverse experiences, including witnesses refugees fleeing the Iron Curtain at the end of the Cold War, operating successful multi-unit business models, helping families start their own franchise businesses, and even losing over 100 pounds on two separate occasions.
By Roderick Armstrong
Saturday, June 05, 2010
First, let us start with the dictionary definition of conserve: to keep from being damaged, lost or wasted; to save keep, or preserve. In politics, a conservative is defined as someone tending to conserve or preserve established traditions or institutions.
Now let us ask a leading question. Is it worthwhile to conserve or be a conservative? George Santayana, Spanish-American poet and teacher of philosophy at Harvard University, wrote in his book Reason in Common Sense: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I am a child of the Great Depression - oldest child of a mother set adrift in that economic disaster with three youngsters. One week we lived on a peck of dried peas - morning, noon and night - which my mother, in great humiliation, obtained from the government surplus food depot.
I mention these painful, personal memories so that you will understand I am not unmindful of the hardships of poverty and circumstance, or the role of government in mitigating disaster.
I cast my first vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt - believing then, and still today - that government has a responsibility to "prime the pump" in great emergencies.
Unfortunately, when Democrats discovered the vote - getting power of free, social services, they would not return to the requirement of individual responsibilities. In 1951, while lunching at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., President Truman and his press secretary came in and took stools at the bar next to our table. After sandwich and soup, the president turned and said hello to my host. With this we engaged the president in conversation.
That morning, a headline on the front page of the "Washington Post" was -- "Inflation Hits 3 percent." None of us in the group had ever heard of inflation. So I said, "Mr. President, excuse my ignorance, but what is inflation?
Mr. Truman smiled and replied, "Don't apologize. I was asked that same question at the cabinet meeting this morning. I explained it was like a hunter stung by a bee -- and here he told a locker-room joke, the gist of which was the hunter's desire for a salve that would remove the sting but leave the swelling.
I laughed, but I realized he was deliberately pumping up inflation for political gain - by running the printing presses overtime at the Bureau of Engraving.
Truman already had confiscated the real cash in the Social Security Insurance Fund to help pay for World War II, replacing the insurance reserve with I.O.U s. Thus, the hedge against old age retirement ceased being insurance and became a "trust." Some of you may recall the liberal argument: "There is nothing to worry about. We owe it to ourselves."
I became alarmed, because common sense told me that Social Security, and even the nation, would go bankrupt if inflation - at 1 percent, or whatever - continued indefinitely. That's when I became a conservative.
When Social Security approached its first short-fall in the early sixties, I wrote a column warning about the impending crisis. The amount of angry response by readers, including some close friends who should have grasped the facts, astonished me. I was called irresponsible for suggesting that Social Security was in trouble.
However, the Washington politicians fessed up a year later and raised the employee/employer Social Security taxes for the first time. Such increases have occurred periodically every since. Another is needed right now, as is Medicare and Medicaid.
The critical problem is that working-and-saving Americans now must cough up to government - federal, state, and local - at least a third of what they earn. I am a student of history, and I have learned that all previous civilizations have collapsed when approximately 40 percent of the fruits of producers go to support non-producers - government functionaries being the largest non-productive consumers.
We are closer to the edge than our politicians like to admit. In our time, the Soviet Union slipped over the edge. The Communist Manifesto - "to each according to need, from each according to ability" - has a wonderful, compassionate ring. But socialism always has been a nation-killer, and liberalism is nothing more than slow-motion socialism.
The United States national debt is 5 and 1/2 trillion dollars. Interest on this debt takes the top 35 percent of federal taxes. Social services that the borrowed money provided has been consumed and forgotten.
If we balanced the federal budget next year, and every year forever, we would never escape the 35 percent overburden on our federal revenue without repudiating the debt, or confiscating your and my savings by drastic devaluation of our money.
Don't laugh! President Nixon did it overnight in a small way. Mexico and Russia did it last year big time. Inflation does it more slowly, but just as surely. How much did you pay for your last home or car that 20 years ago cost one-fourth as much?
We must move on from balancing the budget and start working earnestly toward reducing the national debt. It's the economy, stupid.
After the economy, the principal problems plaguing the nation center around the liberal dissipation of established traditions and institutions.
We have destroyed the family and the work ethic with no-questions-asked welfare, encouragement of out-of-wedlock teen-age pregnancies with free condoms in school and welfare after delivery that rewards the disappearance of impregnators We have dumbed down education with the hope of keeping kids in school - but, still, the drop-out rate in inner-city schools is 45 percent and unemployment of young, black males is 55 percent. A lost generation.
Pornography and gutter language is common on prime- time television. Teen-age drug addiction is soaring. Street violence is commonplace.
Liberals laugh at morality, family values, religious faith, hard work, high educational standards, courtesy, patriotism, chaste sexual conduct, individual responsibility, pre-marital abstinence, polite language.
To conserve, one has to be smart enough to know what to keep and preserve from 10,000 years of civilization, so we don't keep repeating grievous mistakes. Our nation, our culture, our civilization depends on conservatism - either to save what is good and workable, or to rescue us from anarchy when the nation goes belly up.
I close by recommending the "Serenity Prayer" delivered at the height of the Great Depression - by Reinhold Niebuhr, the famous American clergyman:
"God grant us the courage to change things we can, accept the things we cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference."
September 25, 1996
Friday, November 28, 2008
My first thought when I picked up Dr. Hunter's book, A New Kind of Conservative, was, Here we go again; another ultra-right wing, evangelical preacher on his soap box, ranting and railing against the sins of our society and the failures of our secular government. But I soon realized that he is nothing of the sort. Instead, in this thoughtful and extremely well written book, he challenges the status quo among conservative Christians by asking such questions as: can a Christian/biblical world view effectively mesh with postmodern society and secular government? and; should Christians be involved in political action and if so, how?
The role of Christian conservatives, or the Religious Right, in the political process surfaces regularly in the public consciousness, especially when such hot button issues as abortion and gay rights are debated. How effective are they in promoting their cause within government and society? According to Dr. Hunter, not as effective as they could be. To make his case, he provides a list of five myths and three truths all imbedded in their efforts. Christian conservatives who continue to promulgate the former become less effective over time, while those that ignore the latter miss valuable opportunities to influence the political process in a more productive way.
Dr. Hunter is eminently qualified to address Christian conservative issues. He is the pastor of a church that administers to approximately 12,000 people who worship together in real time at multiple distribution sites throughout Central Florida and at hundreds of smaller sites throughout the world via the internet; he is an internationally known spokesman for compassion issues outlined in scripture; and he serves on the board of six organizations, including the National Association of Evangelicals. And while he speaks to, rather than for, Christian conservatives his ideas merit close attention; for what he is proposing is a shift away from the extreme right of the political spectrum, to a place less confrontational and more conducive to productive dialogue with other players in the political arena.
So, where is this place Doctor Hunter suggests Christian conservatives go and how do they get there? It's all spelled out in the chapters describing the Pilate Process, so named because the goal of this process is to learn from the mistakes Pontius Pilate made when judging Jesus. What could today's Christian conservative possibly learn from the Pontius Pilate of biblical times? As it turns out, quite a lot. After describing the process in precise and very understandable detail, Doctor Hunter summarizes by listing six easy to remember principles that will make us good at politics when we follow them. It all made good sense to me, and my gut feeling is that he is on to something profound.
The bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's (Matthew 22:21). For Christian conservatives who are struggling to find their political voice in these trying times while heeding that admonition, A New Kind of Conservative is mandatory reading,
And now, for an admonition of my own. If you do decide to read "A New Kind of Christian," be sure to fully engage your brain before beginning and read it with slow deliberation letting the full weight of its logic sink in. If you do, you will be rewarded many times over.
Ron Standerfer is a freelance writer and photographer who is a frequent contributor to Ezine Articles as well as numerous other online news sites. His latest novel, The Eagle's Last Flight chronicles the life of an Air Force fighter pilot during the Cold War and Vietnam years. Details of his book can be found at http://www.theeagleslastflight.com
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Case in point: Senator Joe Lieberman. The senator from Connecticut, one of the few Democratic senators I respect, is fighting in the primaries against Ned Lamont, a white guy. Mr. Lamont touts himself as a Democrat “…who will stand up for Connecticut and stand up for our progressive democratic values.” Now in most political circles, progressive is still a title that one does not want to shoulder. However, this politician believes he will win with such a title. Whether he will win or not is not the point, however. If Senator Lieberman fails in the Democratic primaries, he has stated he will run under the banner of an independent. This is all fine and groovy; however, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a moderate with rightward leanings (if you can believe her talk), has stated she will not support such a candidacy by Senator Lieberman.
Consider what this means for just a moment. If Mrs. Clinton does not support Senator Lieberman and instead pledges her support for Mr. Lamont, a man who is an anti-war progressive, it shows us that all of Mrs. Clinton’s tough talk on the war is as dependable as Windows ME. In fact, such support for a progressive should send off warning flags to the country that Mrs. Clinton is in fact as liberal as “foaming at the mouth” Randi Rhodes and The Daily Kos. Of course, if you listened to her, you would think she is simply a moderate politician who happens to have been associated with very liberal policies in the past.
Without a doubt, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is in league with the far left. That is why the Democratic Party is in a mess. Mrs. Clinton’s positions demonstrate one of two possible situations she and the Democratic Party find themselves in today. She is either part of the far left or she is terrified of this new powerful political body within the Democratic Party. I suspect she is a far left politician naturally, but it shows you that even she cannot escape their grasp. The far left is far more powerful in fact that the religious right when it comes right down to it. When was the last time you saw Republicans as a whole actually doing what religious conservatives wanted them to do?
Whether or not Lieberman wins his reelection (personally, I doubt he will), the point here is that you must watch who your politician supports. Looking at these type of facts will point you toward the real intent of someone like Hillary Clinton. Time will tell whether Mrs. Clinton’s deception holds for the 2008 elections. Whether it does or not, however, the Democratic Party will have to deal with this ever growing problem of being controlled by radio show hosts who have audiences that can barely support them in the ratings.
Anther fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Another fine injury report from Conservative Textbook
PS - For those of you wondering why it is I can't write a blog article but I can write this, that's because I had someone else write this injury report.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
The question of the year is simple – who will be in power in 2007? On a national level (I can’t speak for any local elections except those in Colorado), things look grim. Indeed, they look very grim for the Republican AND Democratic Parties. The media, for what it’s worth, says the country is in an anti-incumbent mode this year. I suspect that is relatively correct. The media, for what it’s worth, claims that will devastate the Republicans who are in control of Congress. I suspect that could be possible. While I am not blindly optimistic about the elections this November, I am not running around in terror like some conservatives are this year. An anti-incumbent attitude will hurt the Democrats too.
Neither party has done a good job this session. The Republican majority has fumbled, crashed, and burned their most opportune session in decades. The Republicans had a chance and the numbers to get some real work done on the national level. They lost that chance nearly the minute they got it. I blame Senators McCain, Specter, Graham, Chafee, and various other Republicans for a great deal of the blunder that has occurred this past session. On the other side of the aisle, however, the Democrats have done a nearly equally poor job. Their far left fringe base that controls most of the party’s elected officials is just as angry with their senators as the conservatives are their own senators. Neither party seems to be able to stand up for what their constituents desire. Neither party seems to be able to legislate what they were voted to legislate.
Why, you may ask yourself, has this happened? Why is it that our elected officials on both sides seem to be unable to stand up for what their supporters want? I believe it is because they are listening to the wrong sources. On the Republican side, our elected officials who are not doing what we want them to do are listening to the older media such as newspapers, CBS, ABC, and other sources that are reserved for liberals and old people. Of course, to please The New York Times AND conservatives is impossible. It is easier to please The New York Times, however, because results are seen immediately in the editorials and on the front page. However, in the long run, Republicans will only lose ground if they try to please The New York Times. On the Democratic side, a similar problem exists. Democrats are listening to far left wing pundits such as Air America, the Daily Kos, and Al Gore. Such sources are out of the mainstream of American culture, and thus the Democrats find themselves serving a base that is not quite compatible with American culture (to be absolutely accurate, that base hates Americans, American culture, and even themselves when you get right down to it). They can’t please foaming at the mouth Randi Rhodes and America at the same time.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe the problem is at this time with our elected officials on both sides. Will 2006 fix this problem? No. This disconnect with our politicians will only change after we slowly weed out politicians that don’t legislate what we put them in office to do. It will take time and effort, but that is the only solution.
Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Responding to reports that phone companies are turning over private details about Americansí telephone calls to the National Security Agency, the American Civil Liberties Union today launched a nationwide initiative to end illegal government spying.
ACLU affiliates in 20 states today filed complaints with Public Utility Commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials demanding investigations into whether local telecommunications companies allowed the NSA to spy on their customers.
"We cannot sit by while the government and the phone companies collude in this massive, illegal and fundamentally unAmerican invasion of our privacy," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "And unfortunately, we cannot wait for Congress to act. The ACLU is mobilizing its members and supporters nationwide to demand investigations into this shocking breach of trust. And we are asking the FCC to use its authority to uncover the facts about how far the president's illegal spying has gone. The American people want answers."
True to form, Romero has twisted the facts of this case around to scare the unsuspecting liberal minded, apathetic imbecile who supports him and his anti-American organization. To this point, each and every legal scholar who has looked at the program has agreed that no laws have been broken.
Congressional leaders, including Dick "the dick with the turban" Durban have come out in favor of changing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to cover this type of operation. Each one has touted the benefits and necessities of this program for the national security of the United States and its people.
Democrats are approaching this from the oversight angle. That if the President was given authority to conduct this operation in just the same manner that it already has been, it would provide some oversight with teeth under which the President is less likely to abuse the power.
Republicans are approaching this from the stand point that the President needs this program and having it written into FISA would provide him with the tools to conduct it.
I agree with both actually. No matter who is in power, it is always possible for power to be abused. But as both parties have recognized the need for the program and both have expressed the need for it to continue, what is the ACLU's beef?
I'll tell you what their beef is. They are the perpetual fly in the ointment. If they aren't causing trouble over each and every thing the federal government does, they feel as though they aren't doing anything at all. After all, if they agreed with the stance the government takes, their significance would be non-existent.
This is a fund raising campaign. If they make a big enough stink about this, the apathetic morons will give them more money. If by chance they prevail in any one of these many lawsuits that they are planning, then they can circumvent the legislative process and again, they make money off the government.
The ACLU is listed as a non-profit organization. They claim to be non-partisan. But it seems awfully odd that the only members of Congress that are members of the ACLU are Democrats and that the ACLU publicly opposes any proposal sponsored by Republicans. And it seems awfully odd that each time they win a case, they take a larger cut of the settlement than their clients.
The ACLU feeds of the weak minded. They rely on the apathetic uniformed morons who fill out the little form and send it in with their $25 each year to get their little card in the mail so that they can go around saying that they are "card carrying members of the ACLU". If these people had half the intelligence that they claim to have, they would look into the dealings of the ACLU and come to the same conclusions that we have. That their actual goal is destruction of the United States as we know it.
President Bush and other administration officials have neither confirmed nor denied a USA Today report that the NSA is collecting the calling records of ordinary Americans in its effort to detect the plans of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations.So the ACLU will sue these companies for helping our government to detect terrorists? All the while, the ACLU has a massive database of its own members, their financial information, and much more private details than the NSA could ever hope for.
Bush has said the administration's anti-terror surveillance programs are legal and constitutional.
The ACLU was planning to file actions with state utility commissions in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Other states were expected to be added later. Source
Sign the Petition To Stop Taxpayer Funding of the ACLU.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board
Saturday, April 01, 2006
The First Job Contract passes revolutionary measures in France, namely that of allowing employers to fire workers under 26 without cause during their first two years of employment. French President Jacques Chirac has been caught in a firestorm between the two opposing sides of this bill. There are those who want the bill applied and enforced, and there are liberals who want the bill destroyed. Chirac has decided, according to reports, to proceed with signing the bill; however, he will amend it nearly immediately.
By now you should be asking yourself a question – why is this bill even is existence in the economic paradise of France where welfare, guaranteed jobs, long vacations, and less work for the same pay are the rule of the land? While the liberals in this country bemoan our 4.8% unemployment rate, the French are enjoying an unemployment rate of 9.6%. However, please recall that one of the primary protestors of this new law is the student population. The French student population currently enjoys an unemployment rate of 22.2%.
What is wrong with France? Why is this country of unions, socialism, liberalism, and bigotry against Muslims and Christians having these unemployment problems? The answer to that is very simple – unions, socialism, and liberalism. The First Job Contract allows employers to fire unproductive workers under the age of 26 during their first two years on the payroll. Currently, if an employer hires someone under 26, that person basically can’t be fired (red tape the size of Texas gets in the way). Therefore, what is an employer going to do if he or she can’t trust a new worker? That employer is going to hire someone over 26 who he can eventually fire (remember though, it’s very hard to fire anyone in France). If employers aren’t going to fire young people, the youth population is going to be severely unemployed (22.2% to be exact). Even though it is easier to fire someone over 26, it is still very hard to fire someone in France. The unemployment rate over 26 will also be high because of these rules (9.6% high to be exact).
I would like to draw you back to the beginning of this article. It is the students who are protesting this new law. It is also the students who are in dire need of jobs. If this law were to pass in its true form (which it won’t, according to Chirac), my prediction is that unemployment for those under 26 would drastically decrease. Why worry about hiring someone if they can be fired easily? It would cause those under 26 to be a very attractive demographic to employers, and it would cause the brats under 26 to develop a work ethic not unlike that of the American youth (that shows how far gone the French really are in the first place).
Odd, isn’t it, that the people protesting this new law are the exact people the law would benefit the most.
Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Allow me to explain myself. Actually, allow someone else to explain it to you. Senator John Kerry (who served in Vietnam), explained on the radio that, “I can say to an absolute certainty that if things stay exactly as they are today absent some unpredictable change in what's going on, within the next 30 years the Arctic ice sheet is gone… Already you have the Greenland ice sheet beginning to melt ... If that melts, you have a level of sea level increase that wipes out Boston Harbor, New York Harbor - I mean, it's just stunning what we're looking at.”
Good glory! Sounds awful, doesn’t it? Now of course, that would be simply a disaster. However, I’m not worried about it. You see, we don’t even have to worry about the ice caps. Our planet will be long dead by that point. Al Gore, by way of his friend, explained to us some time ago that he “… believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.” This frying pan would be the result of global warming.
Good glory! That is even worse. Forget about melting ice caps, we’re all going to be dead 20 years before that happens. I’ve got a question about all this, especially Al Gore’s revelation – what’s the point? Do you really think it will be possible for us, even with the Kyoto Treaty, to mend this damage before we all die? Seems to me that even in the dreams of liberals, we’re already dead! Maybe that’s why John Kerry’s family (a separate entity from John Kerry, as we all know) owns several SUVs, five obscenely large mansions, a jet liner, and a yacht, all of which are polluters. John Kerry knows it is futile to try to stop our inevitable death.
In the mean time, before I die of heat stroke from Al Gore’s frying pan or drown from John Kerry’s floods, I’m going to go up and enjoy several days of snowboarding in the above average snow pack of several world class Colorado ski resorts (I snowboard, I don’t ski – skiers are crazy and unsafe on the slopes, so I refuse to be a part of them).
Another fine lesson from Conservative Textbook.