Archive | April, 2011

Tags: , , ,

Why I Left California

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-11-14 21:11:29. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
November 8, 2010

After living in California for 33 years, I finally decided to leave. I sold my business and my home and relocated to South Carolina.

I moved to California when I was 17. Like most of my fellow residents, I was busy living my life. I gave very little thought to politics, assuming that politicians knew best how to run the state. I wasn’t even aware of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I would always vote, but with 20/20 hindsight, I see how my votes were manipulated and influenced by the overwhelmingly liberal media.

Until age 36, I pretty much followed the party line, believing what I saw on the news and read in the papers. I figured the ‘experts’ knew better than I, and was relieved not to have to form my own opinions. I relied on group thought, which is, or was, extremely pervasive in the Los Angeles area.

I remember hearing a talk show host describe how a school board in Torrance was successful in defeating a Christian candidate and remember feeling glad that there were others out there working to keep radical influences away from our children. I never questioned the premise that Christians were considered radical.

I adopted as fact the headlines I saw on the news. I was busy living my life. It wasn’t until 1992 that I became aware that I had only been exposed to one side of the story. I was not even aware that there was a conservative point of view.

In 1992, Ross Perot was on TV holding up a toilet seat. Perot said the Air Force had paid something like $700.00 for that toilet seat. He then said the 5 words that changed my life forever. “And this is public knowledge.”

Huh? I decided to check out his claim. And I found that, yes, that information was public knowledge. Only problem was, the media in Los Angeles had never reported it. Just as they never reported any other than the liberal point of view.

After some searching, I latched onto National Review Magazine and the Washington Times. What I found when reading those publications made my blood boil. There was a whole school of thought out there that I had never been exposed to. The conservative point of view. And I found I agreed with their premises.

No matter how thin the pancake, there are always two sides. For 22 years, I had only been exposed to one side of the story. And I came to find that side I had been exposed to was far different from what I had been led to believe. Shame on me.

I assumed that my husband, family and friends would be just as angry as I when I informed them of my new insights. I quickly found out that, then, as now, they were totally opposed to hearing any facts that challenged their long held views.

Long story short, I became a pariah. Conservative views were simply not tolerated back in the 90’s in Los Angeles. When I persisted in voicing my opinions, most of my relationships suffered. My husband left me and my family made clear that there must be something wrong with me. I got tired of the raised eyebrows and condescending smiles. I realized nothing I said would penetrate. The frustration drove me to anger, which pretty much nixed any chance I had of influencing others to my new point of view.

For 8 years, the only place I could be myself was when I covered conservative gatherings. Finally, a stray news item had a catalytic effect on me. I found that 7th graders in San Francisco were being taught how to fist. (A homosexual practice – enough said) Under the guise of teaching tolerance, my tax dollars were being used to fund a week-end ‘health’ fair that brainwashed children into believing that the gay lifestyle was normal – merely a lifestyle choice. That was the last straw.

I took off on a cross country trip, seeking a place where I could be myself and where my tax dollars wouldn’t be continually funding policies with which I fundamentally disagreed. I finally decided on South Carolina. I sold my business and home and left California for good.

I miss many things about California. But after last Tuesday’s election, I realize that living in California is no longer an option for me.

The blatant media malfeasance, the lack of intellectual diversity and the continuing reign of liberal politicians guarantees that California will remain mired in failed liberal policies for the foreseeable future. And I will not condone paying the taxes the state insists upon when I know the money will be spent on promoting a largely discredited liberal agenda. That’s not the America I want to live in.

Since 2002, several of my friends have also left California for good. Studies show that the only increase in population in California right now are immigrants. Which begs the question: Who will be paying the taxes required to fund the utopian agenda put in place by far-left liberals? And how long can California continue to ignore reality before the whole state comes crashing down?

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s possible Governor-elect Moonbeam can solve the state’s fiscal crisis. Just because he’s a lifetime member of the far left doesn’t mean he can’t change his stripes and usher in the reforms California so desperately needs. By golly, I just saw a pig fly right by my window!


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com

Article posted with the author’s permission.

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

John Stossel Airs Program on Atlas Shrugged

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-06 00:32:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Ayn Rand's sign.
Image via Wikipedia

John Stossel, the respected reporter who in October last year joined Fox Business after quitting his affiliation with ABC as an anchor on the popular “20/20” news program, will be airing a program discussing topics from Ayn Rand‘s great work “Atlas Shrugged.”  The program will air this Thursday, January 7 at 8:00 PM Eastern on Fox Business.

For those familiar with this work, John has published a poll on his blog asking who do you believe Wesley Mouch, one of the leading characters in the book, most resembles in today’s administration. Visit the pool at:

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/04/updated-atlas-shrugged-poll/

If you don’t receive the Fox Business Channel, I believe John’s program will stream live on their web site at:

http://live.foxbusiness.com/fblive.

I encourage readers to go to the Ayn Rand Institute site to check out the many references to her work and learn more about the revival of her philosophy of Objectivism. Click on the corresponding image below.

Update after program was aired:

John Stossel’s program on Atlas Shurgged, watch it here in 6 parts:

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6:

Part 4 of 6:

Part 5 of 6:

Part 6 of 6:

Ayn Rand's sign.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (7)

Tags: , ,

Doing D.C.

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-05-19 21:29:08. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Washington D.C.

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
May 18, 2010


If you’re one of the unfortunate Americans that live in fly-over country, I have bad news for you. Our nation’s capitol is now pretty much off-limits to you.

Last week I had business in Washington, D.C. and planned a few extra days to re-acquaint myself with our nation’s history. It turned out to be the week from hell.

My first mistake was driving my SUV. The beltway encircling D.C. resembles a scene from Dante’s Inferno. Fellow drivers inside the beltway were just plain rude. All of them. As a result of being unable to change lanes, I missed my exit and spent the next two hours wandering narrow streets rife with ‘No Left Turn’ and ‘One Way’ signs. I started getting a bit anxious.

I finally made it to my hotel, whereupon I found that there were no smoking rooms available, despite my specific reservation. I figured if I’m spending $300.00 for a room, plus an extra $30.00 for my car, I should be able to do what I want. Not so. Smoking in my room would incur a $300.00 fine.

I logged onto the Internet and found that there were no rooms available anywhere in D.C. Hotel rooms cost an average of $350.00 per night. Quite affordable if the government or lobbying firms foot the bill, but quite out of my league. Alas.

Having decided to shorten my stay, I ventured out the next day to get in as much sightseeing as I could. I quickly found myself wandering in a sea of bureaucrats. I was awed to be in the presence of so many important people (in DC, everyone is, or acts, important). The majority of them had furrowed brows as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders. And they were all focused intensely, on themselves. I was invisible.

D.C. is a beautiful city. Our monuments are awe-inspiring and the sense of history is overwhelming. Unfortunately, the culture in D.C. is not welcoming to regular Americans. Tourists are merely tolerated, unless they’re somebody.

D.C. has been taken over by those who seek power and influence. It has a very clear social hierarchy, as do most cities. Unless you’re rich, famous, powerful or an insider, you’re no-one. Just the poor sucker whose taxes pay for it. What sets this city apart, however, is that they make absolutely no effort to hide it. Egos have replaced good manners.

Tourists are barely tolerated and largely unacknowledged. The only smiles I received were from fellow diners as I committed the social sin of giving thanks to God for the meal I was about to receive. And those smiles were condescending sneers.

The city itself is imploding. The infrastructure is falling apart. Traffic is a nightmare, parking is non-existent and hotel accommodations are available only to those willing to spend their life savings. D.C. is no longer for the people. Its for power players jockeying to get close to the seat of power. The power culture is toxic and infectious.

As a conservative, I seldom criticize something without offering a solution. Here’s what I would suggest as a sure fire way to remake our nation’s capitol back into the people’s capitol.

Since Obama is into redistribution, I suggest we redistribute D.C. With the exception of the White House, Supreme Court and Congress, how about we take all the government agencies and parcel them out to the states. Hey, South Carolina would get a much needed shot in the economic arm if say, the CBO and the FDA moved here from D.C.

Other agencies like the FDA, the IRS, the CIA, etc. would immediately achieve tremendous cost savings by relocating their headquarters to fly-over country. Thus freeing up buildings that could be used to house people like myself who want to visit D.C. Call it affirmative action for tourists.

The benefits of redistributing D.C. to the states are enormous. The immediate results of this plan would mean thousands of government bureaucrats, instead of spending all their time jockeying to be close to the seat of power, might just be reduced to actually reading the bills they keep churning out.

Hey, the bureaucrats would even have to live under the rules they are imposing on everyone else. They would also be exposed to ‘diverse’ cultures (as in ‘outside the beltway’) with a good chance of adopting some cultural traits from their fellows. Traits like good manners, consideration for others and other multi-American traits.

Until and unless we’re successful in redistributing the power in D.C., I’m going to keep renewing my travel alert against travel to D.C. to all residents of flyover country. I suggest instead that you vacation in South Carolina, where residents smile naturally and people are the way they’re supposed to be. Besides that, we’ve got tons of parking, affordable hotels and a refreshing lack of very important people.


Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s All About Common Sense

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-09-01 22:54:29. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Thomas Paine.
Image via Wikipedia

August 23, 2009

Each and every day a child is born into a world of truths and lies, rights and wrongs, haves and wants.  From its first breath, it is conditioned to understand the forces of action and reaction, the relationship between wanting and getting, and how to manipulate the circumstances to best serve its needs. Whether it’s crying to receive its milk or copping a smile to get a hug, the child quickly begins to understand how to acquire material and non-material things.

Our mind is conditioned to think in terms of acquisitions and possessions. It is human nature and, just like with any other emotion, there too is an emotion attached to one’s possessions. The value of one’s possessions (regardless of whether they are material, like a home or a car, or non-material, like professional respect or rich family traditions) is directly related to the effort exerted in obtaining them. The depth of the emotion attached to these possessions is similarly directly correlated to this effort, as well as their value.  The three form an inextricable triad which is deeply rooted in human nature and natural law. From this simple observation, a basic conclusion about the human condition can be summarized as follow:

Your happiness is directly related to the value of the wealth (material and non-material) you’ve created and the effort you’ve contributed in creating it.

When we are first taught to play in the sandbox, we are told not to take the other children’s toys. Why? Because first of all those toys don’t belong to us – we haven’t earned the right to have them. Secondly, it would make the other children sad, since that for which they likely had to do something to get (i.e. earn it), would be unjustly taken away from them. It’s just common sense, isn’t it?

value-effort-happiness

But some time very soon after the sandbox stage in a child’s development, these nascent links and deep-rooted relationships between ownership, effort and happiness begin to be eaten away. In the home this happens through parents who too easily accept the commercial media version of the world and who are not willing (or intellectually able) to espouse the basic principles of natural law and individual responsibility onto their offspring.   Outside the home the society takes over with incongruent representations of the real world, manifested in attitudes such as:

  • debt is good (and you don’t really have to pay it all back)
  • your mistakes are everyone else’s problem
  • less capable does not mean less deserving
  • every effort is just as good as any other, and should deserve the same outcome (i.e. it’s the effort that counts)
  • opportunity should not be equally apportioned, but instead should be skewed toward those who need it most, even (or particularly) if at the expense of those who can produce a better outcome from such opportunity

Does that make sense? Is a society which has these as its principles efficient, fair, equitable and sustainable?

Clearly, the answer must be “no,” since each violates one or more basic laws of human behavior and indeed common sense. Yet over the better part of the 20th century the American society has adopted and inculcated each of these values into its daily life and its government, media and cultural centers continue to promote even greater departures from the basic principles which make up the human behavioral DNA.

A modern society which is based on principles of liberty and freedom cannot at the same time be one which imposes unnatural laws and ordinances on its citizens. It is not, as most progressive liberals would like to see, a place and time where all are guaranteed an equal outcome, regardless of their individual contribution.  It certainly cannot be one which irresponsibly uses its financial and human resources and violates the most basic principles of supply/demand economics.

Like the sea farer that knows the immovable nature of the stars and how they provide him guidance to navigate the stormy waters, so too a modern society must have its anchor in tried and tested core founding principles. And this is particularly true in a world where change is occurring at increasing speed and where losing its national compass, a society risks eternal disorientation in the sea of conflict and divergence.

In his 1776 political pamphlet “Common SenseThomas Paine looks at the political systems of his time, the monarchy, the British parliament, commons and constitution and questions many of the prevailing ideas of the role of government and its relationship to the citizens. In so doing he applies a rigorous discipline of logic and of common sense, and exposes nonsensical laws and political traditions. Most constitutional historians agree that this scrutiny and deep analysis of the British system of government at the time made a significant impact on the writing of the United States Constitution.

We could say that much common sense was applied by the authors of the American Constitution in formulating the principles of our founding. We know that because of its common sense it has withstood the test of time.

Each time we step away from these guiding principles, we lose one more star in the sky to guide us by.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Article may be published with attribution to the author and the NakedLiberty.com web site

Article is Copyrighted (c) 2009, XCIOS, LLC

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (2)

Tags: , , ,

Liberal Syntax: A Noun, a Verb, and a Bush Smear

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-14 16:25:24. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Number of terrorist incidents for 2009 (Januar...
Image via Wikipedia

by Scott Spiegel
ScottSpiegel.com
January 9. 2009

When conservatives correctly pointed out that one disastrous terrorist attack and another catastrophic but thwarted attack both happened during President Obama’s first term in office, because his agencies overlooked the perpetrators’ jihadist intentions or failed to act on relevant intelligence, liberals responded with an argument that was discredited nearly a decade ago: “But 9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch!”

Obama supporters mocked Rudy Giuliani’s recent claim to George Stephanopolous “We had no domestic attacks under Bush,” stubbornly avoiding Giuliani’s obvious implication that he was speaking post-9/11.  Until last week, Democrats loved to excoriate Giuliani for making endless references to the terrorist attack that occurred while he was mayor of New York; now they claim he forgets it happened.  Which is it?

Conservatives’ point is that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, which Bush did not have available to him until, surprisingly—9/11.  The Ft. Hood and Flight 253 attacks happened in the first year of Obama’s administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of Bush’s administration, but Obama had the example of 9/11 to learn from, and Bush did not.  (Even if you count the thwarted attack by the shoe bomber in December 2001, that bomber tried to strike just months after 9/11, when fully revamped security procedures were not running as smoothly as they are now; also, the bomber used the novel, unprecedented technique of wearing the bomb on his person so that it would not be detected by luggage screeners.)

Obama not only had the example of 9/11, he had seven years in which to witness and debate and vote on the implementation of the policies his predecessor devised that kept the country safe in the years after 9/11.  Obama denounced and campaigned against these tactics every chance he got.  He hasn’t revoked all of the Bush policies—upon assuming the Presidency, he must have received access to hair-raising intelligence that made him realize the suicidal folly of reversing Bush on everything—but he has slackened up enough, rhetorically and policy-wise, that our security standards have slipped and our enemies have become emboldened.

It is not enough to say that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11.  He has actively rejected them.  He has argued that doing the opposite of what Bush did will keep us safer.  We are seeing how well the Obama Doctrine is working out in his first 11 months in office.

Another error in the “Bush-was-bad-so-Obama’s-off-the-hook” argument is that Bush did not do anything to actively facilitate the occurrence of 9/11.  In contrast, the Ft. Hood shootings were aided by the politically correct refusal of the U.S. Army—under Commander-in-Chief Obama—to recognize murderous jihadist sentiments expressed by Major Nidal Hasan openly and repeatedly while in medical school and residency, and the promotion Hasan received despite his poor performance reviews.  The Flight 253 near-attack was made possible by the Obama administration’s failure to act on numerous warnings available to it, such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father having called the U.S. Embassy to report him, Abdulmutallab’s not having a passport or luggage, and his having bought a one-way ticket with cash.

But there’s an even more damning flaw to the contention that Bush should have been able to prevent 9/11, and is therefore as bad as or worse than Obama on national security.  Namely: just what would Bush opponents have preferred that he do in his first eight months in office to prevent terrorist acts, when they now scream bloody murder at the slightest suggestion of profiling at airports, accuse Bush of being Big Brother for trying to monitor terrorist communications, and express their clear disapproval of any war Bush started abroad to target Al-Qaeda?  Are liberals implying that they would have been fine with Bush doing all of these things in a pre-9/11 world?  They’re not even fine with The One doing these things in a post-9/11 world.

The left have been digging up examples of localized attacks carried out by truly isolated (not Abdulmutallab-style “isolated”) loonies—such as Bruce Ivins’ anthrax-laced letters to news broadcasters in September 2001, Hesham Hadayet’s shooting of two Israelis at LAX in July 2002, the Beltway sniper attacks in October 2002—as proof that Bush didn’t keep us safe.  Ignore for the moment that when each of these incidents happened, the same people criticized Bush for using these events to “hype” the threat of terrorism to justify extra security measures.  Instead ask: what level of government intervention into our lives would have been necessary to prevent every one of these attacks?  And how likely is it that liberals would have supported Bush’s carrying out such interventions at the time?


Scott Spiegel writes for the ScottSpiegel.com blog
Article published with the author’s permission.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (0)

Free Subscription to Naked Liberty Articles
* indicates required
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

TradeTrakker


Our Twitter Followers

Friends: Followers:

Recommended









free counters

Contribute

Other Links

EasyHits4U.com - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, 5-Tier Referral Program. FREE Advertising!

Yavrim.com - Link to a Random Site. Help Promote Free Traffic Exchange
Subscribe to updates

Get Adobe Flash player