FAA Shutdown Because Dems Want to Protect Pork – Common American Journal


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With all the spin going on regarding the FAA shutdown, here’s insight on why this happened.  I don’t think you’ll hear this version on the lamestream media.

FAA Shutdown Because Dems Want to Protect Pork – Common American Journal.

(P.S.  Yes, I said I was taking a break….but as you can see, that’s very difficult for me to do.  So I’ll post this short blurbs of interest, but I promise I won’t overload your in-box!)

Advertisements

Tags:

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

9 responses to “FAA Shutdown Because Dems Want to Protect Pork – Common American Journal”

  1. Lee says :

    Some valid concerns which I will consider. But please try not to be too “conservative” about this. Economies change, and there is every likelihood that our economy will change. I don’t mean Marxism, but rather a refocus on the need to put things like national sovereignty ahead of business preferences. Corruption might also be handled more effectively. On that, all I will say is that, uh, zere are vays of making ze trains run on time. And zey vill like it!

    As for Hawaiian statehood, your “Sovereignty Movement” would actually hate me. Note I said it should remain a territory–that is, a territory of the United States. That means LESS autonomy and sovereignty than a state, more akin to a colony whose populace is subjugated for the Union’s benefit.

    As for Alaska, that is quite legitimately a state, as geographically it is indeed “of America.” The same is true of Canada, Latin America, and–I would argue–the Caribbean. Those areas could legitimately be made states in our Union since they are part of the American continents, or in the case of the Caribbean, sufficiently tectonically linked, much as the UK is tectonically part of Europe, despite the presence of the Channel and objections raised by people like “Chunnel” opponents. Hawaii, on the other hand, has no particular geographic or tectonic (or defineable cultural) link to “America,” but rather is part of Oceania, the Pacific Islands. It is actually more closely related to the Philippines than the Americas.

    I actually have a rare 49-star American flag, which was the official banner from July 4, 1959 (after Alaska became a state but before Hawaii did) to July 4, 1960 (after Hawaii had become a supposed state). Rightly speaking, perhaps it should be the true banner of our country.

    • giliar says :

      Hey Lee – I know change is inevitable and sometimes it can actually be good! (What a concept.)

      As for Hawaii’s usefulness as a state, I have one word for you: military. If there’s one thing Dan Inouye has done fro Hawaii that has made it economically viable, he turned it into an important military base for the US. Of course, he’s turned into an idiot progressive in his later years and should have retired a long time ago.

      I was joking about the Hawaii Sovereignty people liking you 😉

      And let me know if you ever want to get rid of that 49-star flag.

      • Lee says :

        “As for Hawaii’s usefulness as a state,” we could keep military bases there regardless of its statehood status (remember Pearl Harbor). In fact, it being a state makes it less useful, since as a state it has 10th Amendment protections, including the power to secede. While secession would not legally require the removal of our bases there–cf. Fort Sumter in the seceded South Carolina and the Cuban government-opposed Gitmo–it would reduce their efficacy.

        Unfortunately, removing a state from the Union without its consent would likely be considered a violation of the ONE AND ONLY UNAMENDABLE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION–the requirement that states be allowed equal suffrage in the Senate. If a state could be removed, it would be the equivalent to losing that which it had before. One can argue around that, but it cuts fairly close.

      • giliar says :

        Sure we could have bases there if it wasn’t a state, but like you said it would reduce their efficacy. anyhow, gotta go becasue barry’s on TV again….and he just made fun of the Navy. Way to go, Barack!

      • giliar says :

        Of course we could have bases in Hawaii if it wasn’t a state, but like you said, it would probably decrease efficacy. Anyhow, gotta go because Barry’s on TV again….and he just made fun of the Navy while speaking at the Navy Yard. Way to go, Barry!

  2. Lee says :

    First, Hawaii really shouldn’t be a state, since it’s not geograhically “of America.” It should have remained a territory, and thus of secondary concern. The focus of this is obviously on mainland North American continental travel (which includes Ohio).

    Second, note the very first thing I said about my rail idea: “If we can get the economy back to its old world-leading self…” This is a project for when we get our economic powerhouse back–when we can afford it without comproming necessary and proper projects.

    Third, it is very difficult to hijack a train and ram it into a building. Thus, this can go far to alleviating a proven dimension of the terror threat, with the resultant lifestyle change not being a concession to the enemy, but rather a recapturing of an American nostalgia (albeit at 200+ mph).

    And fourth, my concern is not about local road congestion, but rather, if anything, airway congestion (and maybe on some Interstate highways that actually go interstate!). My market is the entire continent (north of the Rio Grande), not a local community or county. Indeed, do you fly to get around in Honolulu, or even (generally) on Oahu? Statistically, it is faster to travel by land when the distance is under 300 miles (allowing for airport hassles, etc.). Neither current air travel nor my continental project is designed or capable of dealing with what you describe.

    Plus, air congestion is soon to be a far worse problem. Remember that 2015 is coming soon, and we will have flying cars by then ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKLs9ynZEH0 ).

    • giliar says :

      Hi Lee – This discussion can take us to a very deep and dark place…..namely, the huge money pit known as high-speed rail. I agree with you that it our house was truly “back in order” and if politicians were truly looking out for “the folks” that projects like HSR would not only be desirable, but great for the country. Alas, just like the flying DeLorean, not so….and likely not so in the near or even quasi-distant future. So as not to make this post excruciatingly long, check out this site for evidence-based information on commuter rail systems: http://www.honolulutraffic.com Click on the link for “publications.” While this site is developed for the ongoing HSR debate that continues in Honolulu, it contains information on how such projects are big money losers in other areas. I understand that your discussion is to focus on the entire continent, but the stats on this site will give you an idea of what we could expect from a continent-encompassing system: a hugely tax-payer subsidized black hole. Probably the closest thing we have now to your type of system is Amtrack on the east coast. It’s heavily used, but heck out the stats for that and see how much it’s costing.

      Frankly, I’s love to see the type of HSR system you envision, but it ain’t gonna happen the way you’d like. And it will turn into another union-heavy loss-leader that we all jhave to pay for, whether we use it or not. At least with airline tickets, I pay for my own and my neighbor doesn’t have to subsidize a huge percentage of the cost.

      And I disagree with you about the potential for terrorist acts on trains. Sure, they don’t fly into buildings but it’s not necessary for an object to fly in order to be hijacked or hit with chemical or biological weapons.

      Oh yeah….you’re probably right about how Hawaii shouldn’t be a state (the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement people would LOVE you for that comment!) But the reality is that it IS a state…so is Alaska. So any decisions made in DC affect us.

  3. giliar says :

    Lee….a couple of things:
    1) High-speed rail can’t take people everywhere. For example, when I want to visit my family in Ohio, it’s impossible to take a train from Honolulu to Columbus.
    2) The Communist administration in Hawaii is trying to push through an outrageously expensive high-speed rail project to “alleviate traffic congestions.” To make a very long story short, it’s been proven in just about all markets with high-speed rail that traffic congestion is NOT helped with such an approach. In fact, the rail project in Hawaii is being pushed forward at the expense of other needed projects (Hawaii has THE WORST roads in the country.) Bottom line: it’s a pork-laden boondoggle to pay the unions back for their support of our one-party rule that’s been in place for forty years. It’s a complete joke.
    3) I hate to fly, too. I fly over 100,000 miles a year and have done so for the past 12 years.
    4) Glad you have something positive to say about “Atlas Shrugged” this time 😉

  4. Lee says :

    (ADVISORY NOTE: I am not a conservative. I am a reactionary. While conservatives seek to hold to traditional ways in existence, I seek to go back to old and proven ways, which include putting things higher than oneself into priority. Thus, in reading my ideas, remember JFK’s observation that sometimes the opposite extremes look more like each other than they do the Center. [For Teabrainers, that means you need to take a 100-level Poli-Sci course and put values ahead of the economy before understanding this.])

    Great news! I hate flying. If we can get the economy back to its old world-leading self, we should do proper and constitutional, but also aggressive and effective, investments in high-speed rail transportation. Normally we should allow competitive market forces to determine the course of things such as the civilian transportation industry. However, whereas market forces are relatively slow, and higher matters such as national security and sovereignty take precedent (sorry, libertarian/individualists, you’re wrong), this is a field where some government direction and coordination might be in order.

    Imagine loading your vehicle on a stock car, and the next day being across the country, in times faster than a “Cannonball Run,” and with much more energy efficiency. There would be the cultural advantages of forcing the coastal people to see the REAL America, even if at a blur. This could go far in countering the forces of the Left as they seek to destroy America (part of the national security element). The psychological health of the country would be helped, as people are forced to slow down a bit in their schedules.

    Face it, with modern technology, teleconferencing is so advanced, there is little need to travel at all (picture the Jedi Council meetings with the holograms). Companies would save money on sending people on those thinly-disguised, expense account-padding “business trips.” The skiesways and byways would be less congested. And the business people themselves would have more time with their families and communities. Win-win-win!

    Air transportation would remain for some commercial purposes, primarily transportation of perishable commodities (“I want my pompano fresh! Not frozen!”). Private flights would remain as well, of course. But airline companies would actually have a leg up in moving into this field, thus there would be a structural limit on political and economic disruption, while still allowing for competitive upstart companies entering the field. They would become more like “transportation companies,” even as “oil companies” need to learn to branch out and embrace alternative energies and become “energy companies.”

    Yes, there’s a tradeoff here. People would be less able–though not completely blocked–from the instant gratification of their travel desires. Instead, they would plan their trips and surrounding schedules carefully. Some industries, such as travel agencies, would face impacts, but not as much as allowing those infernal-combustion engine-driven “horseless carriages” on the roads had on the family buggy-whip business. Economies change, even in a conservative society. Even as that little shop had to switch from manufacturing fancy whips to manufacturing fuzzy dice for rear-view mirrors, these industries will have to switch. That’s not fascism or socialism. That’s free enterprise. (And since Teabrainers and the like really only care about economic and financial matters anyway, they should have no complaints. Can’t have it both ways–you can’t sell out your social conservative purism to build political coalitions with “gay libertarians,” and then complain about some shifts elsewhere.)

    Americans deserve the best lifestyle in the world. This approach will serve that end, as it opens the way–without coercion–toward a more traditional way of thinking about our lives and our roles and duties to the community. Liberalism by definition destroys our society and culture. Conservatism has shown itself to develop into individualism/libertarianism and other non-patriotic mentalities that both injure society and open the way for the Left. This simple innovation–good for the economy, the environment, and the emotions–might go a long way toward recapturing our old values, while still facilitating our advancement into an ever-greater civilization.

    Where’s John Galt when we need him? And where’s Dagny Taggart when I need her?! 😉 (I gotta see that movie when it comes out on DVD. And Part 2 needs better marketing.) Yes, Atlas Shrugged is representative of Ayn Rand’s dangerous libertarianism and individualism. Yet it is more so her insightful vision of the benefits of free-market economy. That vision can stand to lead America to ever-increasing greatness (lesson to liberals). BUT–and yes, there’s a “but”–it must be done with an eye toward higher values (lesson to conservatives).

%d bloggers like this: