Presidential children have historically been off limits to any form of criticism. That is, at least until George W. Bush's family took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The media was somewhat subdued in their coverage of the Bush twins, but not exactly following of protocol.
One thing the Clintons were emphatic about (and "Clintons" includes the main stream media, one big, happy "family") was the absolute protection of Chelsea. I never had a problem with that formula, as I believe that the kids should remain off-base. But what about after the kids become adults?
Again, I think they are entitled to their dignity and privacy despite the fame (or notoriety, as the case may be) bestowed upon them by virtue of being a "first child". But when they utilize the recognition that would have been otherwise nonexistant but for their own doing, I equate that with an open-door policy. They have invited us in for a tour of their souls, so hands-off no longer applies.
However poorly the Clintons may or may not have performed as parents, they have done a magnificent job at one thing; raising an only child who is just as radically opposed to her country as her Mom and Dad. They must be so proud. This is evident in the recent acceleration of her involvement in her mother's campaign. Now the question is, if Chelsea is going to actively work on her mother's election campaign, as an adult, should she remain a protected species?
My conclusion is no, for if Chelsea is permitted to say whatever she wants unfettered on behalf of Hillary, it will be akin to a mother using her child as a shield, and I for one want no part of a President that would engage in any such practice. One thing that has emerged quite clearly as a result of Chelsea's recent stumping is a palpable desperation on the part of the Clinton campaign.
Yet another trait in a President that is undesirable; putrid cowardice, coupled with virtually no sense of shame.
It rather reminds one of Dr. Zachary Smith from the '60's television show Lost In Space. It's also a title that quite adequately describes not only the trajectory of Hillary's campaign, but also the platform of the entire Democratic Party.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Presidential children have historically been off limits to any form of criticism. That is, at least until George W. Bush's family took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The media was somewhat subdued in their coverage of the Bush twins, but not exactly following of protocol.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
I will never watch another film that includes Orlando Bloom...
I was at my computer and there was a movie on called The Kingdom Of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom. Now, I know that Bloom is a liberal-leaning Brit, but I have loved his body of work thus far despite his ideology. I was only disinterested in this film because it seemed to be yet another of the medieval genre and for the time being at least, I have had my fill, so it was nothing more than background noise...until I heard that the conflict being portrayed on my screen was that of the Crusades. Then I was interested, particularly because I wanted to see how a movie with Orlando Bloom in it would deal with such a sensitive subject.
I left my keyboard for the comfort of my easy chair in order to devote my full attention to the saga being played out before me. Enthralled, I watched as Bloom's character fought valiantly to defend Jerusalem against the invading muslim hordes and vowed to prevail with his last breath, all the while beseeching his army to follow obediently. The odds were overwhelming and alas, Bloom's army was defeated.
What to do? After all the bravado offered up in the heat of battle, Bloom's character surrendered to the muslim commander with the promise of safe passage out for "every man, woman and child". He surrendered Jerusalem and was subsequently applauded by his troops! Then all left on horseback and on foot without injury.
The very end of the film sees Bloom's character living "peacefully" in the mountains, and is one day approached by King Richard and an accompanying horseman. They are seeking the commander who let Jerusalem fall, but Bloom's character lies and tells them that he's the blacksmith, and they ride off to continue the Crusade, leaving Bloom to enjoy his "gift" from the benevolent muslim victors. The screen fades to black and just before the credits roll there is the obligatory "here's what happened after" caveat, implying that King Richard continued the "slaughter of muslims" without the brave commander-turned-peacenik.
The entire premise of the film, while well produced and very entertaining, is that if we had only capitulated to the demands of the Moors, then the world would be a better place, and the only radicals left would be the King Richard's of the world, refusing to accept "peace".
While we American's eventually tired of the tyranny of English royalty and formed our own country independent of said monarchy, I to this day thank God for King Richard. And I pray that there will be many more like him to prevent the dhimmitization of the planet.
The story depicted a fierce conflict between ideologies whose capabilities were somewhat equal. Today, we have the overwhelming advantage and could crush our enemies instantly if we had the fortitude to do so. I do not suggest that we do so, but I sincerely believe that we have done all that we can do to demonstrate our reluctance. All it has bourne is a perception of weakness by our enemies.
The Kingdom Of Heaven had the formula right, it simply arrived at the wrong conclusion. We could either convince radical islam through an effortless demonstration that further antagonization would be detrimental and thereby make them accept our loving embrace, or we could force their hand once and for all and expose them for the hateful bastards that they are before they die.
Sadly, we will avoid the catastrophic event and linger in a slow-bleed war of attrition for the sake of appearance alone. WWII sent a message to the world that too many deaths all at once is too much for the mind to bear. It is human frailty that perpetuates death and destruction at a snail's pace because it is more easily digestible. Sleep matters to most.
Unless radical islam understands that we are prepared for insomnia, they will continue unabated in their quest for our subjugation.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Not literally, of course, but those familiar with my writings will get the jist.
Pundits, bloggers and forum denizens have been speculating since John McCain won the Republican nomination over whom should be the Vice Presidential pick of the victor. There has been almost unanimity amongst these groups not as to a particular person, but rather to the group from which this person should be selected.
Most people seem to favor those who are fresh in the recollections of the voters; the people who were contestants and losers most recently. Why should this be? To be fair, even though we political-thinking types are up-to-the-minute junkies of the news, by the very nature of our thirst do we forget so quickly former stars of the office of "X". To sum up, once they're out of the public eye or office, they seem to fade from memory.
Dan Quayle was a relatively unknown Senator from Indiana who never saw the tap coming from George H.W. Bush. Suddenly thrust into the national limelight, Quayle was overcome by the enormity of it all. He has since been the butt of jokes and collectively remembered as an intellectual light-weight. But that was in the olde days, the days before the instant information age. We have learned since that Dan Quayle is quite the brilliant mind.
So who does McCain pick? Romney, Thompson, Huckabee? Why do these names readily come to mind?
Familiarity, that's why. With all of the information available to us today, we still insist on clinging to the familiar. There is a whole world out there that we never bother to explore. Let me be your guide on the new tour.
The Obama campaign has brought to the forefront of the American consciousness the prospect of the first Black President. Are we ready? I would venture to say that the resounding reply would be yes. Are we ready for this particular Black President? From my own perspective I would have to say the resonance of negativity dwarves the enthusiasm of the Obama supporters. I could be wrong from a purely Zogby-esque viewpoint, and that remains to be seen, but here's where it gets interesting.
There is a very good man that McCain could select as a VP nominee. His name is J.C. Watts, and he is probably the best thing that could happen to American politics, assuming that his ascension to national office would assuage the angst of anyone who views racism as a continuing bane of our country. Some people will never be happy.
Watts is a youngster by politcal standards at 51 years old. He's good looking, charismatic and pragmatic. He is an American first and a Black man second. He is the embodiment of what we should all strive to become, and he has a ministerial background. One of the most endearing things about Watts is his plain-spoken demeanor. At the Republican National Convention in 1996, Watts had this to say:
"You see, character does count. For too long we have gotten by in a society that
says the only thing right is to get by and the only thing wrong is to get
caught. Character is doing what's right when nobody is looking."
Anyone who has seen Watts on television has seen a man uncomfortable in the spotlight but a man who nonetheless is capable of speaking his mind. I have never seen him utter a single word bourne of expediency, nor have I seen him rendered speechless, a foible for which Quayle attained notoriety.
No, I believe that J.C. Watts would be ready if a McCain tap-on-the-shoulder should ever come. And I sincerely believe that he would be a blessing if something should ever befall McCain.
-Woody Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I've written a series of articles on my junior senator over the years designed to expose Hillary Clinton for the charlatan that she is. I predicted that the April 2007 release of Carl Bernstein's book would unleash a firestorm of Clintonian vengeance on his head, a HillBilly jihad, if you will. It turns out that my prediction was wrong, as the Clintons chose to ignore the book, as did much of the media. No harm, no foul, as they say.
Bernstein was not in a position a year ago to cause Hillary any consternation as it turned out, because she was riding a political high wave at the time. She was seen as unbeatable. But now Bernstein is back, reiterating his points made in the book. He's laying leather boots on the downed former First Lady. Perhaps he still has a shot at validating my prediction afterall, despite the fact that much of the magic has been drained out of the Clinton/scorpion stinger. Perhaps he feels safer now.
Coupled with Bernstein's assertion that Hillary has always had an estranged relationship with the truth, Dick Morris has also been busy chronicling the string of false "memories" of the woman who would be President. A screenshot from Morris' article:
• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in
bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted
wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at
the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the
futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)
Sphere: Related Content
She also claimed to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace process, something that Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey labelled "a wee bit silly". It should be clear to sane people that Hillary is not among their group, that she is peering from outdoors through the window to the house of sanity through cupped hands, and steaming up the glass.
There is a word to describe people that suffer the same affliction as she does; pathological. It has been my experience that such people simply cannot be trusted. Some will defend Hillary to the end, but I must also call into question their own relationship with the truth. Once upon a time it was working for her...but every well runs dry, eventually.
Monday, March 24, 2008
I have written much on the socialistic proclivities of my junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, much of which has been either ignored or worse yet, scoffed at, yet I remain undeterred in my efforts to prevent her from ever again occupying the White House. (Never mind that my efforts to prevent her from attaining her current credentials bore no fruit, either.) If the main stream media won't do their jobs objectively I will gladly offer my bias as a counter to theirs, no matter how vociferously they will deny its existence.
Hillary and her team have been truly oustanding in their ability to spin damaging news and deflect revelations that would certainly sink the average politician. One must begin to wonder, however, if the attributes are due to their savvy skill or to our collective desire to not see what is obvious. A masterful and charismatic liar (see Eddie Haskell from the old Leave It To Beaver Show) has the unnerving ability to beat a polygraph machine solely because they can also look you straight in the eye and successfully deny that which you have just caught them doing, red-handed. The friendly- minded psyche readily dismisses that which seems ludicrous. Kudos to the Clintons; they have benefitted from this practice to great success.
But now we have the age of instant video intruding on this tried-and-true savior of the un-pure. They make headlines by benefit of video and then must besmirch that which gave them some form of credibility earlier. Case in point:
The latest news is the foreign policy experience factor that Madam Clinton touts as qualifying her for the role as American President. Her part in the Irish Peace process being debunked is a side-note, something that she has become quite adept at brushing aside with ease, thanks to a friendly media. Now she is claiming that while visiting Bosnia, as First Lady, she was surprised that her "warm greeting" turned into a mad dash to escape sniper fire. Sinbad, the comedian who accompanied Hillary on that trip, remembers no such thing. Problem? Not for Team Clinton. This is a simple matter of discrediting a black comedian.
Oh...wait. There is video. Yeah...the video shows a smiling Hillary being greeted by a local entourage that included an eight-year-old Bosnian girl. No one was ducking from gunshots, as the esteemed Senator claimed.
Then there was the claim by the very new Senator Clinton that her daughter, Chelsea, was almost a victim of the Twin Tower collapses on 9/11. Hillary was out there getting publicity on the local networks because, as she claimed at the time, her daughter was "this close" to being one of the victims of al-Qaida on 9/11. That was also a lie.
Say what you will about words, as Obama has been drumming...I believe that they DO have not only meaning, but consequences. How far Hillary's campaign can go based on false words remains to be seen. How much the public is willing to swallow also is something I will be watching closely. Be careful nonetheless. There will be many in the coming months who will be sprinkling the most delicious condiments on those words to make them more palatable.
Think before you swallow. That is my best advice.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Note: originally published on my Word Press blog February 15, 2008
I felt the need to write this down while the subject matter was still fresh in everyone’s minds, what with the recent shooting by a former student. The news wires and the blogosphere alike are already working feverishly to find solutions to what is increasingly being referred to as an “epidemic”. I maintain that solutions may prove to be elusive since I also maintain that we created the problem in the first place.
Since the very first moment that Man attained cognitive reasoning he has strived to improve virtually everything around him. There are those who would argue that the effort has not been without fault and collateral damage, and I would agree. Man was not designed to be perfect and we have no business trying to achieve perfection in an inarguably chaotic environment, but it seems we will never learn.
Baby Boomers grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons. Most of us suffered no ill effects from the “carnage” we witnessed as Bugs Bunny shot Yosemite Sam in the face point blank with a cannon. More importantly, none of us ever thought that it would be a good idea to try the same on our friends. We had rules we lived by and were well grounded in them. More important still is the fact that our parents strictly enforced those rules, and they were backed up by the neighbors, whom we feared equally as much as our parents.
In this litigious society we have conjured, it is incredibly ironic that some Boomers now insist that “it takes a village” to raise a child. I can say with certainty that if one of “the villagers” today attempted discipline such as I received at the hands of Mrs. Carey from across the street, they would be arrested and incarcerated for child abuse. Their own children would subsequently live in squallor in the wake of the massive multi-million dollar lawsuits that would ensue.
We have sought perfection by removing the stigma of the loser in making winners and losers terms that no longer apply. If one child loses, his self esteem may be impaired. At the same time, we drill into our childrens’ psyches the need to excel at studies. Why? So that they become successful in life. Is it any wonder that they are mentally discombobulated?
Add to all of this the fact that we have become so paranoid about letting the kids out to play, as we did as children, that we keep them indoors and give them “safe” activities like virtually shooting virtual people on the TV monitors through the wonders of X-Box. Discombobulated just made the leap to psychotic, combined with a dose of desensitization to violence. What a formula.
What we have accomplished through our arrogant social engineering endeavors since the 1980’s is evidenced by the violence we have seen perpetrated by young adults, to a certain degree, and teenagers to a larger degree. We have removed “personal responsibility” from the vocabulary and the societal conciousness of parents and children alike. So what we have now is a generation of people who feel entitled to success while expecting immunity from any form of competition, and they are angry when the formula does not work.
Oddly, while they seemingly exhibit all the signs of mental incapacity, they are still savvy enough to know where to strike. They are deranged enough to kill wantonly and yet they possess the understanding that only they will be the bearer of firearms in a “gun-free” zone. Competition removed coupled with guaranteed “success”.
Every facet of authority and punditry is engaged in a combined effort to “fix” the problems presented by these rampant killings. The methods they propose will only make matters worse. They are still in pursuit of perfection.
My solution is to get the kids out playing. Let them fend for themselves in the schoolyards, learning how to deal with the harsh realities life serves up. Let them learn how to win, and how to get over loss. And for God’s sake, let them experience a well-intentioned ear-tug from Mrs. Carey.
And perhaps the most important tool we can utilize to expedite a return to a more simple time; if we let the kids out to play, make the punishment for anyone who would harm them swift and most severe. Make it clear that we are seeking a return to better days and anyone who attempts to impede that “progress” will be harshly dealt with.
The existence of guns is not the problem and therefore, removing them will not be an effective corrective measure. That much should be obvious by now. No, what is needed is a correction in the mindset of the kids, an undoing of the damage we have done.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
There has been a misconception for quite some time that healthcare in America is lagging behind that of other nations. People who watch tabloid television derive the majority of their viewpoints on pertinent issues from people with an obvious axe to grind. Michael Moore is also misleading people regularly, perhaps because he simply doesn’t understand the horrors he seeks to reap.
The left in this country, those who wish to inflict the “single payer system” on us, tell us that our health care system is inhumane and favors the wealthy, which is patently false. What is inhumane is putting one person or one agency in charge of your health. The system delivers quick help for primary care, something voters like, but if one is seriously ill they could die waiting in line.
This leads me to a link a friend sent to me. It has to do with the “free health care” that Canada has to offer. First, it’s an obvious misnomer because even though one can visit the doctor and not have to pay, the fact remains that one has already paid for it through exorbitant taxation. Everyone pays. Second, no one can get a procedure without the approval of the Health Minister, and third, paying out of pocket is not permitted. That would give an unfair advantage to the…”wealthy”. The bottom line is equal misery for all.
Here’s a glaring example. A woman in Ontario had a serious bladder malfunction making it painful or impossible for her to urinate normally. Janice Frazer needed a small device installed to remedy this condition. She was told by her doctor that only twelve such procedures per year were permitted and that she stood at number thirty-two on the waiting list. That left her on an almost three year queue for surgery. To make matters worse, she offered to pay for the surgery and was denied, because medicine is “free” in Canada. To watch her story in her own words (and those of her mother), click here. (She eventually had to have her bladder removed).
An even better example is the case of Lindsay McCreith, also of Ontario. He was suffering from severe headaches and seizures. His doctor suspected a brain tumor and recommended an MRI. He had to wait four months before getting his first MRI! He also wanted to pay for it rather than wait the four months and again, George Smitherman was there to tell them no. What to do?
He went to Buffalo, NY and got his MRI, which determined that he did indeed have a brain tumor the size of a golf ball. He went back to his doctor in Ontario with the MRI results and was told he would have to wait three months just for a consultation with a neurosurgeon and that his surgery would probably be as much as eight months away. So, it was back to Buffalo, where he got the surgery in a week.
The lesson here is this. As bad as it would be to inflict this terrible system on Americans, it also raises an interesting question: Where would Canadians go for lifesaving proceedures if we emulated their system? America is the place people turn to when the need is dire. As Bill Whittle asks, “Go up on deck and take a look at which way the rafts are headed.”
The question that I ask is, do we really want a President or Congress that would wreak this kind of havoc on Americans? Think about this when you go to the polls.
Allow me to clear up one thing for the readers before proceeding. I am caucasian. There, now I have given the all-clear for anyone who wants to pre-judge my comments to bail out right now. It seems that those who perpetuate the myth of racism engage in the practice of bailing out routinely, not to mention the practice of racism itself.
Bill Cosby has been speaking to these practices of late, and he has been vilified for it. People who have the most to gain from the racist platform and the most to lose from its collapse have been the most boisterous critics. So-called black leaders who have amassed much wealth and celebrity from their exploitation of those they presume to protect have risen up of late not against the institution of racism, as one might expect, but rather in opposition to Bill Cosby, e.g., the people who have begun to expose, and in some small measure erode, their ignoble empires.
The Bill Cosby affair is long out of the news cycle, I admit, but the Congressional Black Caucus is in the thick of it. Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen, a freshman congressman, wanted to join the caucus. He was turned down flat. The reason? Because he’s white even though his constituency is majority black. (Sorry, I refuse to use hyphens, for any ethnic group. We’re all Americans). There was a call to arms, so to speak, by former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, who had circulated a memo telling members it was “critical” that the group remain “exclusively African-American.” ( I would have said "Black").
Add to this travesty the fact that we also have institutionalized racism in the myriad blacks only organizations such as Black Entertainment Television, Black Miss America, to name a few, and what you see is a social no-no allowed to flourish unabated.
All of that aside however, modern society has been astonishingly successful in breaking the chains of racism. Interracial marriages are commonplace today, for example. Blacks and whites congregate in harmony at social events on a routine basis, and even casual social encounters are warm and cordial, whether it be holding the door for someone or offering other rudimentary assistance such as bending to pick up a dropped parcel with a smile and a “your welcome” in response to a thank you.
Employment is no longer based on race nor is the choice of friends and companions. There are exceptions as there always will be, but by and large we are getting along famously. Thank God for that. So what is wrong?
Society has come around, and people like Bill Cosby have been instrumental to that end, knocking all of the pillars from under the platform of “race leaders” and their perpetual “victims”, yet the platform continues to defy gravity, hovering with all the weight of the attendees still aboard, laughing and clinking cocktail glasses as they enjoy the party. It has yet to collapse. How could this be? How could the laws of physics be circumvented right before our eyes.
Just as simply as the wool is pulled over the eyes of the “constituency” of so-called black leaders, whose usefulness has long passed.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Buying Sinner’s Offsets
Is it possible? Can we actually trick God into believing in the purity of our souls by throwing some coin at the collection plate? Is there any rational person among you who would fall for this codswallop, and if so, would you feel that you could sleep soundly at night with the soothing comfort that you had done all that you could do, simply because your check was larger than that of the nearest person in your pew?
The bigger question is: do any of you believe that you can sway God’s judgement at all, be it by conscious thought or by deliberate deed? Or more to the point, by financial counterbalance…
My bible says no.
So does the “bible” of science, and yet we have multitudes of the “pure” preaching to the masses (that would be you and I) about how we should live and how we should consume resources bestowed upon us by the Creator. These minions have decreed that by the very nature of their message that they have immunity from the laws they seek to impose upon the rest of us, that being energy conservation, although this law has evolved to include the light bulbs we use to even the amount of toilet paper with which we wipe our bums.
Is Cheryl Crow really using one little, thin square? Ridiculous, unless she has the best fibre diet available to mortals. At the risk of sinking to locker room vernacular…well, never mind. There are times when the jury can be swayed by what they don’t hear.
Back to the original point here. “Gorites” have opened an entire new phase of human behavior, that being that any excess you wish to indulge in is easily offset by simply purchasing impunity.
I find it utterly amazing that the very people who protest loudest about capitalism are the people who have the most money. Multiply that amazement 10 fold and you will only begin to understand my confundity at those who consume the most fuel and still rail shrilly at the rest of us for struggling to fill our tanks. Then again, we poor folk should just throw in the towel and bike to work, even if it is a mere 52 miles round trip. Hey, we can make great strides towards eliminating obesity!
The bottom line here is, if someone has a thirst for blood, should he be within the rights of society to donate money to a family and then have the clear conscience and blessing of the courts to kill their only child? It’s pretty much the same principle with “carbon offsets". If you’re paying for them then you must be acknowledging that your habits are bad.
For the record, I don’t buy offsets. I just drive.
Monday, March 17, 2008
If I were to tell you that it would soon be legal to buy poison for your own personal consumption, as long as you could afford the price, you may think I'd gone 'round the bend. But that's just what the government is already doing. They are not only allowing it, they're seeking to make even more money from the practice. The state of New York, for example, is considering doubling the tax on a pack of cigarettes.
The government has stated time and again that tobacco is a lethal substance that kills its consumers. Because they care so much for the health and well-being of their constituents, they feel the need to do all that they can to make us stop smoking. The problem is, they need to make some coin while they do it. How could such a benevolent entity warn us that we are literally killing ourselves while they reach into our pockets for loose change?
One would think that the governments both large and small would make such a deadly product illegal immediately and arrest and incarcerate anyone caught with it in their possession. It's done with narcotics, why not with tobacco (which, incidentally, is more addictive than most narcotics)? Some will say it's because a person under the influence of a narcotic poses a potential danger to others around him. Fair enough, but I say that if the reports are to be believed, smokers pose an imminent danger to those around them. So again, why not cigarettes?
Here's why; because people would revolt and it would cost the government money to battle a rebellion as well as jailing and feeding the prisoners. The solution is to keep making cigarettes ever more expensive and yes, helping some to quit, but the pool of hold-outs left buying the smokes continue to die while becoming an increasingly smaller pool of revenue. The government continues to count their bounty while these people die.
Think about it, people. If cigarette smoke is really so toxic and deadly, how on Earth can the government blatantly allow its continued use? It is not yet illegal to smoke, but the places available to do so are shrinking. Still, it is still permissable, albeit for the time being, to walk down the street and enjoy a cigarette. What would happen if some was walking down the street swinging a truncheon, knocking people off of their feet? He would be arrested for assault, right? Again, if reports are accurate, and second-hand smoke is so abominable, why is it not dealt with more harshly?
Something is out of kilter, and yet no one sees it or bothers to question it. Anti- smokers applaud like seals whenever any punitive measure is launched against smokers, but they never question the methods. Imagine if you were one of the victims of the fellow with the truncheon. Would you not think it very much more than odd if a policeman came along and slapped him with a hefty tax, rather than haul him off to jail?
Smokers and non-smokers alike should be united in opposition to any more taxes on tobacco. For the last time, if we are to believe that it is as lethal as they insist it is, we should be likewise united in our outrage that the government is allowing our loved ones to be systematically slaughtered by smokers.
Demand that tobacco be deemed a banned substance at once and made illegal to own. Either government will address our concerns and comply, or be forced to admit that tobacco is not nearly as deadly as thought.
Talk about a win-win scenario.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Contributed by my friend, SleeplessByTheSea
Change - Obama Style
Does America Really Want Change?
We’ve all heard the chants. We’ve all heard the battle cry from the campaign trail…change, change, and more change. Is that What America wants? Then I would have to assume that they want a change for the better.
Those that Have been falling into line behind Barak Obama are in the wrong line. That line is going backwards. Forty plus years backwards. We’ve by now all heard the outrageous sermons by Obama’s Preacher. We’ve heard him damning America. We’ve heard him try to stir hate over slavery that took place here, and ended over 143 years ago. It’s those that want to hold on to that hatred that need to change! We know now that Obama attended that church, and considered himself an active member there for the last 18 plus years. He was married in that church. His children were baptized in that church. The Obama’s took their children to those sermons. Yet, it wasn’t until yesterday, Friday March 14, 2008, that Barak Obama came to realize what was being preached there? Give me a break! Just exactly how stupid does Barak think we are. Obviously he does not give us much credit. His denouncing of a man he embraced as his friend and minister for 18 plus years, only after the media spreads around his agenda, leaves no doubt that Barak’s unnamed plans for change were not for the betterment of this nation. On the contrary.
This nation has come so far, healing from our past treatment of black people. They have the same opportunities as any other race in this country. You don’t have to look far, to see just how many of them have risen to the top. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Michael Steel are only a few in the political scene. There are many more in the entertainment world, such as Bill Cosby, Denzel Washington, the list is long. In our own communities we have many people of color that have taken advantage of what this country has to offer, and have made the best of it. Sure there are still people with very little…but they are not all black. They never were all black. We’ve always had poor white people, too. We always will. There will always be an element, that cannot quite pull themselves out of their poverty. That doesn’t make the country bad. This Country fought a Civil War to end this kind of mindset. Let's not discount all of those that gave their lives for that cause.
Poverty isn’t racist. And neither is the American dream. The worst thing in the world for people that are struggling, is to give them an excuse. They need to be inspired to do better…..to get and education….to help themselves, and to accept a helping hand, without a chip on their shoulder. The need to believe in themselves, not hear that they are being mistreated. Those that embrace the mindset of racism and division, do far more harm to their own race, than any person from another race could ever do.
Barak Obama could do more for the black people that were encouraged by the rants of Rev. Wright of hate and division, if he would encourage them to pursue their dreams with hard work, and determination, than he will ever do, by continuing to let them believe they are being stymied by their government. But, I’ve never heard that out of Obama, have you? No, on the contrary. We’ve even heard his wife claim, that she was never before proud of her country, until they embrace Barak for change. Yet, she was afforded a wonderful education, in some of the nicest schools in the land. She has not had a bad life in this country. She doesn’t look like she’s hungry or cold. If she, or others that feel so badly about this country, why haven’t they looked for a better life somewhere else. The last I looked, our borders were still wide open, to come and go.
Barak Obama has left too many questions in too many minds. His chants of change, and yet no detail. That alerted many suspicions. No one was quite sure what his agenda was. Was it his muslim ties? Was it his church, that honored Farrakhan. It clearly has never been revealed to date. Yet his followers seem clueless to his empty messages.
If Hillary Clinton or John McCain were campaigning with such an empty message, they’d be out of the race over night. Why was it Obama was getting such a free pass, until the media brought out this church into the light?
How many of you want to back-track to the racism before the 60’s? How many of you really believe that white people are superior to blacks? I do not. I never have. I believe we are all God’s children, and that we are all blessed to be here….where the only superior colors are red, white and blue…..not a skin color.
Shame on Wright, and those like him, that do their best to take advantage of a church pulpit to incite hate.
Shame on Obama, for bringing it into our presidential race. If he really wanted to make a change for the better here, now, after this, he would step down, and vow to fight this kind of mindset, and sell the opportunies of this nation. But, he won’t. He’s not man enough. Black, or White. And he's certainly not presidential.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Seditious BehaviorMarch 10th, 2008
Most clear-thinking people will eventually acknowledge, despite their vociferous protestations against any particular subject, that free speech is a precious thing and should be protected. We may wish that someone who is spouting nonsense with which we disagree would shut up, but not many would endorse a law that would force them to do so.
There are people and groups who do now and always have loathed the military. They have every right to their opinions no matter how twisted I may view them to be, but that right becomes seditious action when it is intended to directly impede the work of the military. Apparently shame is a thing of the past.
Code Pink and those sympathetic to their cause have been busily harrassing the military recruiting center in Berkeley, California since it opened in January of last year. Chanting and singing in protest is one thing, but when the protesters blocked the entrance for three hours, there should been a police intervention. Of course, the protesters would have been screaming about oppression and the loss of their civil right to protest. That would have been pure bunk, however.
To make matters worse, we now have elected officials encouraging this sort of behavior. The Mayor of Berkeley and the City Council have branded the Marines as “unwanted intruders” and have been supportive of the protestors. If nothing else, why aren’t they supportive of the rights of the Marine Corps’ free speech? And an even bigger question would be, why aren’t the liberal protestors out there to support the rights of young men and woman to choose whether to join the military?
Pro-choice is not the same without all that make-up, people. Here’s how elected officials view abortion clinics. From the AG of Massachusetts:
“Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that a new law restricting
antiabortion activists from standing within 35 feet of an abortion clinic’s
entrance did not violate their right to free speech.”
Of course, liberals will claim that having clinics blown up justifies the tighter security and the usurpation of the rights of abortion foes to be vocal in their opposition. Then they will dismiss the bombing of the Times Square Recruiting Center as a need for the same security of the Berkeley recruiting center. Someone needs to tell them that they can’t have it both ways. And if the Massachusetts Attorney General’s position has any merit at all, we should be free to tell the Berkeley protestors to shut up. Especially since the very people that they hate so much are responsible for their right to free speech.
-Woody Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Why Contested Games Are Not Replayed
March 6th, 2008
Michigan and Florida willfully violated the rules set forth by the Democratic party and agreed to by the candidates prior to the beginning of the primary season. Now they want to re-write those rules mid-game in the name of “fairness to the voters”. Consider:
Your team has lost, and you’ve seen the replay over and over again. You grow more livid every time you make yourself suffer the outrage of seeing the referee, once again, cost your team the game. Finally, the sports writers’ pugnaciousness bears fruit and the league is forced to admit they erred on the call. Ah, vindication is sweet. Or is it?
So what happens now? Surely the game is replayed and your team has a fair chance to win, as you originally believed they would have, right? No. No, you’re left feeling that a game has been wrenched from your grasp and a damnable injustice has been done, and it will not be undone.
It’s a matter of history that cannot be corrected, for the original conditions can never be duplicated in order to provide the same conditions that would have reaped the outcome that should have been. It could be weather or it could be an injury to a key player that would render a redux moot. So the loss stands.
Howard Dean now says that a fair solution would be to have Florida and Michagan have a new vote in the primaries, based on the tight delegate counts for Obama and Clinton. What is not taken into account is the absence of Kucinich (D-OH) and Edwards, the former Democratic senator from South Carolina. Yes, they were on the ballot in Florida, but they did not campaign there because they knew the rules made it a waste of time. And in Michigan, they did not even have their names on the ballot.
So what to do? Do we simply seat the delegates from those states, or have another vote? Do we bring now meaningless candidates back in the event of a re-vote? And what if these two states had abided by the rules in the first place; would either Kucinich or Edwards still be viable candidates? Or do we reset everything back to the beginning of the primary season?
The entire dynamic of the primary process has already been set in stone, and it cannot be undone with any modicum of fairness to the voter. There is not enough time to bring all of the candidates back to do the whole thing over. So what’s left? Sure, there will be much wailing over the alleged “disenfranchisement” of the voters of Michigan and Florida, but if they had followed the rules from the beginning, none of this would be cause for conversation.
The remaining candidates should reject Michigan and Florida’s delegates as they originally pledged. Pure and simple…
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Do a Google search for...oh, just click the link. A simple Google news search for anything on Hamas launching a wave of rocket attacks yields such headlines as this:
Death Toll Rises in Gaza after More Israeli Attacks
Israel Kills 20 Palestinians in Gaza
At least 14 Palestinians killed after strikes by Israeli aircraft ...
Sure, the articles mention (somewhere in the 4th or 5th paragraph) that the strikes were in response to Hamas rocket attacks, but why weren't those rocket attacks news before Israel's response?
Here's one of my favorites:
Israel has stepped up its response to a wave of rocket attacks launched
from Hamas-controlled Gaza across into southern Israel. One of the attacks
killed an Israeli civilian Wednesday. Israeli officials have threatened a major
ground invasion if the attacks do not cease.
Tens of thousands of Palestinians rallied in Gaza Friday to denounce
Israel's deadly air strikes.
Maybe they should have been protesting the Hamas rocket attacks from civilian neighborhoods before Israel got pissed off.
Here's another one:
JERUSALEM - Fourteen Palestinians, including at least five civilians, died late
Friday and early Saturday in escalating Israeli-Palestinian fighting that
renewed threats of an Israeli invasion of Gaza and clouded peace efforts. A baby
and two teenagers were among the dead. (First paragraph)
Hamas said the baby, Malak Karfaneh, died just before midnight Friday in an Israeli strike on Beit Hanoun, a northern town where Palestinian militants often launch rockets at Israel. But local residents said one of those rockets fell short and landed in
the area of the baby’s house. (Fourth paragraph)
Why aren't they protesting HAMAS killing the baby???
-Woody Sphere: Related Content