Monday, June 29, 2009

Revelations From The Honduran Upheaval

And how it may affect the United States

With the recent spate of celebrity deaths - two suddenly and occurring in relatively young men - and the sensational sentencing of Bernie Madoff today, it's small wonder that the ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the military and the ensuing mayhem has not caught the attention of the average American. Many have only heard of Honduras in the abstract and know little of her, nor do they care all that much, which is somewhat understandable, but there is a huge significance to the events unfolding there that may indicate more clearly the mindset of our own leadership here.

Once again appearing eager to aid in the destructive machinations of Obama, the media have already shifted their collective headlines - which they know full well is what a great many people read and remember - to portray the situation in Honduras as a "coup". On its face, a coup conjures images of a military overthrow of a government, which is true to a point in this instance. What is different, however, is that this military overthrow was clearly justified as a means of preserving the constitution and rule of law in Honduras against the wanton disregard of those very things by her president.

Zelaya was dragged out of bed early Sunday morning by his own military for violating the country's constitution. As the Wall Street Journal reported today:
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
When Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, Zelaya's number one military commander, advised him that he must abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, Zelaya fired him. When the high court ordered the general reinstated, Zelaya refused.

On Thursday, Zelaya led a mob and broke into the military installation where the ballots were held and, in defiance of the Supreme Court, had his supporters distribute them for an illegal vote on the referendum.

Our own secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was quick to join forces with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega - and the Organization Of American States - in condemning the actions of the Honduran military and began pressuring the country to return Zelaya to power. This is all in response to a people and their military fighting to uphold the value of their constitution, and our own politicians are aligned with the forces of tyranny.

And now Barack Obama is calling this action by the Honduran military "illegal", declaring that the United States still recognizes Manuel Zelaya as the rightful president of Honduras. Perhaps his most revealing comment was that he believes this action sets a "bad precedent".

What an intriguing choice of words. I would think that a truly American president would stand shoulder to shoulder with any peoples who defend the constitution and laws of their country. Perhaps I am wrong, and that this president is trying to set - in his mind at least - the proper precedent; the one he needs to finish his job.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Billy Mays

I just wanted to clarify that the piece below was written before I learned of the tragic passing of Billy Mays.
May he rest in peace.
The news article can be found here.

Sphere: Related Content

Billy Mays And The Carbon Card

There you are, just you and the missus, cruising along in your RV, enjoying retirement and the freedom of travelling the country side. But just as you're about to cross the Utah state line, the RV shuts down. Oh no, you've used up all of your carbon output allowance for the day! What to do?

Don't worry, now there's the government approved Carbon Card! Yes, for only $10,000, you'll no longer have to worry about being stranded in the desert overnight. Simply whip out your refillable Carbon Card, call the EPA and you can purchase the rights to continue polluting the air! But don't feel guilty about it because you've paid the government for the right, and they will use that money to build a turtle tunnel under the interstate, or learn of the interesting mating habits of the Alaskan halibut!

So call today to receive your Carbon Card from the EPA and stop pushing your vehicle to your final destination. And if you call in the next eight minutes, you can purchase two Carbon Cards for the remarkable price of only $9,995 plus shipping and handling. And remember, it's not how much you pollute, it's how much you pay for it that counts. Call today at 1-800-NOT-CLEAN.

(Also works for boats, planes and regular SUV's!)

*This is not a guarantee that EPA operators will be available on weekends or nights.
**May not work in some red states.
***Void where prohibited by Michael Moore or Cheryl Crow.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 27, 2009

EPA: Everyone Pay Attention

Will wonders never cease? The mainstream media has reported on something detrimental to their agenda.

I am stunned yet gratified that CBS News has actually reported on the EPA squashing a report questioning the science of anthropogenic global warming. The report called into question the causation of CO2 emissions and their effect on the climate. It also cautioned that limitations on emissions would have little or no impact on climate change, effectively rendering the president's proposed cap and trade scheme useless and pointless. In other words, it exposed the legislation approved by the House of Representatives yesterday as the scam that many of you have already known it to be; the largest tax increase in the history of the nation that will accomplish nothing more than spreading the wealth.

Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, told in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, Al McGartland, was being pressured himself. "It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said. "That was obviously coming from higher levels." Also from the linked article:
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."
Leading up to yesterday's vote in the House, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi were burning up the phone lines to members, beseeching them to vote for the bill on climate change. The EPA knew about this report and let it happen anyway, because they were getting pressure from above that the legislation was going to be passed and that they had better get out of the way. It should be no mystery to any thinking person that there is something foul afoot.

First it was the IPCC and the Gore-ites insisting that the "science was settled" and that anyone who dared question them were heretics and fools. Now there is collusion within our own government to ram through an horrendous piece of legislation that will cause irreparable harm to our economy, something of which I have been warning for years. Hopefully more mainstream media outlets will bring this to the public's attention so they can see that this scam is designed for no good purpose.

In the meantime, I encourage all of you to read up on this EPA scandal and bring it up when you contact your senators. Let them know not only that you are dead set against this bill, but also that you are on to the scheme and will not tolerate the destruction of your country. Here are a few good links:

Washington Examiner
The Wall Street Journal

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 26, 2009

It Passed!

Right after I posted my previous article on the global warming legislation being voted upon, I learned that the House had passed the bill by a vote of 219-212. House Minority Leader John Boehner sums up the process perfectly:

Sphere: Related Content

Pulling Back From The Precipice

With the U.S. House of Representatives feverishly attempting to ram through a vote on "cap and trade" legislation - which would ultimately be the final straw on the back of our economic camel - I am reminded of the rebellious teenager who, knowing that he is about to go where his parents forbade him from going, beseeches the friend who picked him up to hit the gas before his parents discover the truth. It has become the hallmark of this fledgling administration; get it done as quickly as possible before they [we] know what hit them.

We have been hammered over the head with the bogus findings of the IPCC, which have all been based on computer models that defy direct observations. When questioned by other scientific bodies, the counter has consistently been to paint the opposition as a collection of kooks. Further, the facts and evidence presented by those "kooks" have been buried and silenced. Now there is proof emerging to back up my assertion, and it is causing the same urgency in the democrats to "speed away from the curb" as that of the teenager.

International opinion on the subject is swaying away from the ideals embraced by Al Gore, et al, and the "consensus" once touted by the former vice president and his cohorts at the UN is crumbling faster than a sand castle at high tide. The Wall Street Journal reports today that "the number of skeptics is swelling everywhere" in an article titled, The Climate Change Climate Change. An excerpt:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Add to this the discovery by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that the EPA not only suppressed a report contradictory to the Obama administration position, they silenced and subsequently fired the author, Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. They provide the internal emails as proof.

Nancy Pelosi was concerned that the vote today on the climate change legislation being considered at this moment was in jeopardy due to anemic support among the members of the dominant party. She decided to drag the bill to the Hill anyway and assumed that she could brow-beat her members into voting yay on it.

The debate on global warming has raged for decades now, but it is only within the last few years that the fear sewn by its proponents has taken hold. With a meticulously orchestrated media blitz - aided and abetted by alleged high profile celebrities like Al Gore and anyone in the entertainment industry - many, many people have been convinced that they are destroying the planet with their greed. When the United Nations IPCC became involved, the deal was sealed for the gullible, and we now find ourselves at the precipice of financial ruin as a result of their collective endeavors.

Brilliantly blending a scientific argument with a political one, the purveyors of panic have managed to obtain massive support for their diabolical plot to destroy America once and for all, most disconcertingly among many Americans themselves. However, a good portion of them are waking up, and Barack Obama has noticed. That can be the only explanation for his imploring congress to "hit the gas!"

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Maybe It's Not Going According To Plan

While it may seem at times that Barack is a steamroller flattening the opposition at every turn, there are increasing signs of cracks in the machine.

Just as people are powerless to avoid looking away from a disaster, I watched The Barack Obama Show on ABC "News" last night. I knew that many of my friends would not but that they would be curious as to how it went, and I did not want to be in the position of merely wondering. I was heartened to learn today that I had not contributed to an artificially high viewer rating; the show bombed.

That's an awfully strange fact, since the show opened by taking a show of hands from the 164 people in the "audience" when asked about the importance of the issue. Careful to point out that the group was comprised of people from both sides of the aisle, so to speak, we witnessed not one raised hand when asked if any of them believed in the status quo in regards to health care. In a sampling of 164 people, and a unanimous consensus that something must be done - or changed - one would be led to believe that the issue was of paramount importance. Why then did no one watch? It was tied with "some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network."

The first question was designed to humanize the president, asking how he would deal with a family member falling terminally ill. Never mind that asking a wealthy man such a question goes beyond ludicrous; why wasn't he asked what he was doing for his brother George, who lives on a dollar a day in a hut in Kenya? Or about his illegal-alien aunt living in a rent-controlled apartment in Massachusetts?

Of particular note - at least to me - was the way in which this bogus news broadcast was presented. We already know about Obama's set-up question the other day from a HuffPo reporter, but this was ABC News, for crying out loud. It was supposed to be an honest debate on whether or not to saddle the American people with astronomical costs through taxation to fund yet another Obama program, one that is also being shot through the barrel of congress as though it had a few thousand pounds of gunpowder behind it.

Anyone who hasn't noticed the halting, tortured speech of this president when forced to speak extemporaneously has certainly not been paying attention. When the trusty teleprompter is present, he is fine and dandy. Not so much when he is alone. And yet there he was last night, speaking with all the confidence one could imagine, with none of the customary "uh's, um's or aaands" that have already become the hallmark of Obama's omnipresent speeches sans technology. I have opined at length on the breech of journalistic protocol exhibited by this spectacle, but it bears noting yet again that ABC News - coordinating such an event and participating in the guarantee of flawless delivery by the president - is nothing short of subservience to the State.

Add to this the complete reversal of demeanor in Charlie Gibson. During the campaign last year, many will remember Gibson's obvious disdain and dismissal of Sarah Palin in their epic interview in which he treated her as an irritatingly precocious child. Last night we witnessed an energtic and enthusiastic Charlie Gibson, eagerly reciting his lines in the play of plays. As if that weren't enough, we saw Dianne Sawyer dutifully running through the small gathering - microphone in hand - performing her best impersonation of Ricki Lake, not only offering the rising guest an opportunity to be heard, but aiding in the phrasing of the supposedly spontaneous question.

Those are style issues which I thought should be addressed, but what of the substance? Obama used his obedient mouthpiece to offer that since a large part of our health care is already government-run - see Medicare and Medicaid - then we should embrace this monstrosity as a fact of life. He went on to denigrate the salaries of medical specialists as a cost-prohibitive obstacle to "affordable" health care. Qualifying his complaint, he bemoaned the high cost of a medical education as a catalyst toward high prices for doctor visits.

He did offer a solution, however. He actually suggested that we should pay more - "we" meaning the government and therefore, we the people - for the education of more general practitioners and fewer specialists. We should- according to the president - lower the bar for actually achieving a medical degree in order to produce more doctors. This will meet the demand of an additional 40-some-odd million patients. No one on the show raised a single eyebrow at this declaration that somehow pumping doctors through a matchbook-generated 800 phone number would save money but not produce sub-par care.

To sum up that bit of idiocy, the Obama plan is to make it easier to become a doctor in order to produce more doctors. How would you like this principle applied to commercial airline pilots? Hey, we could save a bundle. Oh yeah, there is another way to save millions: tell old people whose days are already numbered to make their peace with God (although the particular deity may be subject to debate). When Obama runs health care - and if you are terminal - a quick ending is what you should seek. Please don't drain the fragile reservoir of funds that will be better spent on actually saving someone.

I know by the ratings numbers alone from last night's show that I am not alone in my incredulity at this administration's audacity, and I am comforted in that knowledge. While it is nice to be accompanied by so many skeptics, however, it still remains that the controlling party in both houses of congress and the Executive branch care not a whit about our concerns. Therefore, all of you should become proactive in contacting your representatives and vociferously - while respectfully - voicing your objections to the Obama-ABC plan to radically change the countenance of your country.

Write to them here.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Day Journalism Died

"So bye, bye Miss American Pie
drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry
And them good old boys
were drinking whiskey and rye
singing this'll be the day that I die..."
-Don Mclean, American Pie

Today is the day that ABC becomes the "Obama network", as they will be broadcasting the "news" directly from the White House. What's worse is that the network is not only unapologetic about it but defiant and proud.

They are proud to unabashedly shill for Obama's plan to socialize medicine in America, making this country into the Canadian system where cancer patients must wait months for treatment and where the top two drugs used here in chemotherapy are prohibited because of the cost.

The Republican National Committee wanted to buy air time on ABC for tonight's love-fest with the president in an effort to rebut the blatant sale of the presidents proposals, offering the American people the information to make a choice. The RNC was turned down flat, ABC refusing to sell them ad space. Considering that the economy is in such bad shape and the networks are experiencing declining audiences and revenues, refusing a paying customer seems a bit odd.

The new Media Fairness Caucus - a group of a dozen House Republican members, headed by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas - sent a scathing letter to ABC News in which the group said, in part:
“The manner in which the news programming is being presented -- at the White House with the President and First Lady and without opposition -- is unprofessional and contrary to the journalistic code of ethics to present the news fairly and independently. This is not a Presidential news conference open to all news outlets. This is an exclusive arrangement from which the President and his viewpoint stand to gain. It’s as if ABC News is providing in-kind free advertising for President Obama.”

(As an aside, this should be more than enough evidence that the straw man argument from leftists who have compared this to the conservative resistance to the Fairness Doctrine is akin to comparing apples and oranges.)

ABC News president David Westin shot back:
“Sadly, some inside government and within the private sector see every issue as material for a sort of political high theatre, to be used to gain votes or energize political bases or simply to raise funds. I would have thought that a subject as important as the health care received by the American people would rise above this sorry spectacle. Our citizens need and deserve more. We are proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry or stylized, bipolar debate; we are proud to work for a network and a company willing to devote valuable airtime to serious consideration of a subject so worthy.”
So, suddenly a major news organization is "proud to be making a serious effort to go beyond mere punditry" when they refused to show any form of patriotism shortly after 9/11 because they were shielding themselves with "journalistic integrity" and impartiality.

ABC has revealed itself to be anything but impartial and tonight will succumb to the courtship of the liberal Obamas. [Fade to black...journalism is dead.]

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 22, 2009

In The Year Of Our Lord

This post is not an original idea, for it is based on a video of 4th District Congressional Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA.) addressing the house regarding this countries suddenly contested Judeo-Christian genesis. It was brought to my attention by a cousin I have not seen in over thirty years but whom I have become reacquainted with through the grace of the technology this world has wrought. Funny how things work out.

Equally funny is how someone like Congressman Forbes can so effortlessly lay waste to the absurd claims of not only our atheistic compatriots, but to the claims of the man we elected as our leader. The former seek to rewrite history as it pertains to God and our tumultuous beginnings while the latter endeavors to portray this nation as a blank canvass upon which he can paint images from the Qu'ran in an effort to appease the enemies he must ultimately battle, providing his oaths were true and his intentions pure.

As leftists clamor to dilute the religious composition of America - presumably because it causes them great fear - they have been somewhat successful in their allegedly intellectual assault on the common masses, the ones who attend church services but spend the entire homily texting or "tweeting". Even more alarming is the fact that they have managed to build a wall of doubt among the more moderate supporters of God as we know Him.

I counted myself among the moderately religious not too long ago, which is why I found this video so profound. Forbes presents a simple yet concrete proof of our Judeo-Christian origins that is simply undeniable. Watch his's a four and a half minute video:

All of our founding documents are dated in "the year of our Lord". Our state's constitutions are similarly dated as are our legal documents. If we are not a Judeo-Christian nation - as our new president and his supporters like to claim - what year is it really?

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 21, 2009

We Need Another One Like This

While not an actual video, this is a great audio montage of Reaganisms with perfectly pertinent photographs. Kudos to the creator!

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Obama Preparing For Battle

A magician's best friends are distraction and speed, the first required to allow the success of the second.

Barack Obama, on his weekly radio address, said today that he is ready for a fight against opponents of his plan for a new government agency that he claims will protect consumers from risky loans and practices of financial institutions that may harm them. Forget that we already seem to have abandoned common sense and self reliance...the issue is the federal government and the president attempting to install yet another layer of bureaucracy for our own good, one that will consume taxpayer dollars just as the others already do.

Perhaps the president sincerely believes in his motives and the reasons he offers that make them so, but it is undeniable that many of his supporters do, simply because they believe in him, however blindly. The facts remain for anyone who seeks them out, and even a casual interest often yields results that may prove uncomfortable for the true leftist believer.

Still in campaign mode, the president pitched his plan for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency while lambasting critics of the plan, saying, "these interests argue against reform even as millions of people are facing the consequences of this crisis in their own lives. These interests defend business-as-usual even though we know that it was business-as-usual that allowed this crisis to take place."

This is where history takes precedence; it was not business as usual that created this problem. It was the demands of the Democrats to provide loans to people who could not remotely hope to make the payments that created this problem, something that even the New York Times reported on in 2005 and 2006 regarding the sub-prime crisis, and something the Bush administration tried desperately to avoid, ultimately in vain.

Some will now look for an explanation as to how this pertains to the auto industry collapsing, but that is probably even an easier leftist correlation to be made. To begin, we'll look at this chart from the Heritage Foundation:At the insistence and machinations of the left and "big labor", auto manufacturers have been buried alive with "legacy costs", something reminiscent of the packages members of Congress enjoy. As the chart points out, most of the private sector works for an average cost to the employer of roughly $25 per hour, and must build their retirement packages out of that number and then, upon retirement, rely heavily on the government for the bulk of their health care through medicare.

Not so for the UAW worker; they get health care for life, just as members of Congress do. According to Heritage:
For instance, General Motors UAW retirement plan paid $4.9 billion to 291,000 retirees and surviving spouses in 2006.[11] That works out to $31.04 an hour when apportioned among active workers.
As the retirees move on, they are replaced by newer workers, while the company still supports those who have moved on and must now pay the new arrival. There are only so many straws that can be heaped on a camel's back.

In his radio address, Obama said, "The American people sent me to Washington to stand up for their interests. And while I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one." Regarding the first sentence, even that is a fallacy, as the people sent him to Washington simply to cleanse their guilty consciences. As for the second sentence...let's give him one.

Sphere: Related Content

I Smell A RAT: The Firing Of I.G. Gerald Walpin

It seems that there is much more to this story than the firing of one man.
By now, anyone who follows the news or politics even peripherally is aware of the circumstances of the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin but, for the sake of thoroughness, I will recap the story.

Gerald Walpin was the Inspector General who was investigating Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson for possible misuse of funds at AmeriCorps, which is run by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Johnson and his program, known as St. Hope, received $850,000 in federal grant money. In the course of his investigation, Walpin learned that Johnson was using the money for things other than it was intended for, such as paying AmeriCorps staff for driving [Johnson] to personal appointments, washing his car, and running personal errands.

This was during the Sacramento Mayoral campaign, and Walpin concluded that Johnson and St. HOPE should be subject to suspension and debarment, but he only had the authority to suggest it. The ultimate decision was the responsibility of another official at the Corporation, who eventually decided on suspension based on Walpin's evidence. The suspension also carried the possibility of debarment, which caused great consternation among the City Council since, if elected mayor, Johnson and the city would be barred from receiving federal stimulus money. As Walpin put it, "The whole purpose of suspension and debarment, is to say that somebody who was involved in the misuse of government funds in the past should not be trusted with federal funds in the future."

Walpin also referred the matter to Lawrence Brown, the acting U.S. Attorney, for criminal inquiry. Not only did Brown's office decide against criminal charges against Johnson and St. Hope, he also entered into settlement talks with them, something that Walpin described as highly unusual. Brown "wanted to settle," Walpin recalls, "and he said that lifting the suspension had to be part of it because that was the 800-pound gorilla in the way of a settlement."

Obama injected himself into the situation on Wednesday, June 10th, through Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. Eisen called Walpin Wednesday night and told him that he should resign or be terminated, giving him an hour to decide. He even called Walpin back 45 minutes later. Walpin declined and was terminated, illegally.

According to the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act, which then-Senator Obama co-sponsored, the president must give Congress 30 days notice and a cause for firing an I.G., which the administration clearly attempted to circumvent by demanding Walpin's resignation. When pressed on the matter, Obama claimed the cause was "lack of faith" in Waplin's abilities.

When that explanation failed to satisfy skeptics, the administration decided to play hardball. They issued a statement designed to portray the 77-year-old Walpin as senile, claiming that at a recent meeting he "was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." Glenn Beck decided to have Walpin on as a guest, and he appeared very bright and sharp with a firm command of both long and short term memory. See for yourselves:

What was even more interesting about that video is the mention of the obscure Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, or RAT board. The creation of the RAT board - a very appropriate acronym - was a provision of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that received no attention at all. Most people probably have never even heard of it. What it effectively does is give the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.”

While not a direct order to comply, the process of defying the Boards wishes is decidedly prohibitive to the point of discouraging an I.G. by design. An I.G. will probably be permitted to conduct an investigation against the wishes of the board only after writing a detailed report explaining his decision to proceed and submitting it to the board, the head of his agency and to Congress.

Inspectors General are supposed to be the taxpayers watchdog, offering transparency to the process and to the public. Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act for the purpose of protecting the I.G.s from political pressure in order that they may perform their duties without fear of retribution. Obama promised a transparent administration. So why all the subterfuge and meddling?

Obama was a huge mistake, America. I hope you've learned your lesson well.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 19, 2009

The Day The Sky Burned

An exercise in dripping sarcasm. (Sorry, God).

Today in the Northeast United States will be a day to remember, as terrified citizens witnessed a phenomenon they were once accustomed to seeing, before the Northeast swapped places with the Northwest. Toddlers cried and the elderly cowered in terror as the omnipresent clouds parted to reveal a giant sphere of fire that singed the skin and burned the eyes.

The young lad in the photo, clad in the only footwear he has ever known - rubber boots to keep his feet and legs dry - was playing in his yard when suddenly the fire from the sky licked at him, startling him so badly that he ran for the safety of his house and mother, screaming. Holding the trembling child, the young mother struggled to remember the name of the fireball, knowing that the answer would help her to calm the traumatized child.

Meanwhile, law enforcement entities were besieged with hysterical 911 calls from bewildered and frightened citizens who described the event in gasping, halting speech. Internet traffic to NASA and NOAA soared, jamming web servers and causing general havoc with Internet service providers. Numerous accidents were reported in more heavily congested areas, as people could not help but to glance Heavenward while driving, struggling to understand what was happening.

Further exacerbating the mass confusion, the clouds would sporadically drift into protection zones blocking the offending orb, only to surrender once again, leaving the people below exposed anew to its terrible glare...

It is late in the day now, and as recollection comes to many who have long forgotten the name of that Heavenly body, it is now sliding toward the other side of the globe, and shall not be seen again for another indeterminate period of time. As some lugubriously equate this spectacle with briefly seeing the ghost of a long lost loved one, others scramble to document the event for future posterity in the event that the Sun comes 'round again.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 18, 2009

"Gird Your Loins" For An Act Of War Update

It's early morning now, in Tokyo, and I have my answer as to how our new president would respond to the latest threat from North Korea: officially, the most powerful nation on the planet has opted for the defensive crouch.

Robert Gates, the holdover Defense Secretary from the Bush administration, has announced that we will take defensive measures should North Korea attempt to fire a ballistic missile toward Hawaii. Absent is any semblance of spinal structure or intestinal fortitude in the face of this rogue nation's threat. We will simply duck and block.

I am a fan of analogy for descriptive purposes, and an occasional denizen of places of thirst abatement, so I will offer the following...

Imagine being in a crowded pub and that there is a very large man present, enjoying the atmosphere as everyone else is. Now imagine that a very small, inebriated man with a chip on his shoulder declares that he is going to beat the large man up - for reasons that matter not in this analogy - and that word of this spreads to the ears of the large man.

The large man now must choose between warning the little man that such an attack would be suicidal, thereby halting the insane intentions of the little man, or wait for the relatively ineffectual punches to the kneecaps that will ultimately result in the little man's being propelled through the pub's decorative lattice woodwork into the wall at the other end of the room, hoping that there are no darts remaining from a previous game. Either way, the little fellow loses. Unless...

Unless there are other patrons watching who are not quite as small or that there are two dozen other little guys who capitalize on the weakness originally exhibited by the large man. Swift and decisive action should be secondary to swift and concrete ultimatum. Simply hoping that accurate deflection of incoming blows will deter future blows is insanity exemplified, and a policy that should be reserved for those whose only hope for survival depends upon it.

The strong should never be compelled or inclined to exhibit weakness. Powerful nations should never acquiesce to the whims of impotent bodies, and bodies designed for the enforcement of world law should neither be impotent nor ambiguous.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Political Bubble Is Bound To Burst

Similar to the ominous signs that the housing bubble was destined to explode, Barack Obama's unsustainable popularity simply will not last.

Just as we're seeing troubling signs of media control by the mullahs in Tehran being used to artificially inflate crowd sizes in the ongoing demonstrations in that country in order to portray greater support for Ahmadinejad, the media in America has shown a reticence to accept that the president of their dreams may not be all he was billed to be.

To be certain, he is smart and charismatic, the latter having clearly kept his poll numbers in the black, but it is becoming increasingly evident to a great many Americans that his acumen for the position may be somewhat lacking. This would explain why his general popularity numbers remain high even as his performance numbers continue their decline.

Polling is one way that a liberal media props up those whom they deem worthy by way of phrasing questions in a certain way and to a certain demographic, or at least a demographic heavily weighted to reflect the desired outcome.

To an increasing degree, the media steers the decision-making of those they allege to simply inform, offering information to them designed to guide opinion. Negative press abounded during the Bush administration on a variety of issues that are now considered positives for Obama. Spending and surveillance are but two examples. It has also been common practice among media outlets to cover demonstrations in the same vein, reporting extensively on crowds with whom they agree ideologically while either ignoring the crowds who counter-protest or misrepresenting their attendance numbers.

These organizations know this to be true and that may be why ABC News has jettisoned "journalistic integrity" - in what I can only assume to be a last gasp at achieving the Utopia they envisioned - for a week of government boot-licking. The depth to which this wicked tryst has sunk is confounding since - with the uber-competitive nature of media marketing - there has been no condemnation of ABC's betrayal from the other networks. Perhaps they have all been promised their day of leather-tasting.

The fact remains that while we are led to believe that this country has swung far to the left, the truth is that the adoring masses we witness on our television screens - crying for Obama like a teen girl at Shea Stadium during the first Beatles tour - represent a minority in America still. A recent Gallup poll indicated that 40% of Americans consider themselves conservative to only 21% who declared themselves liberal. What this says is that if you ask a direct question with no rudder attached, American people are still Americans.

With those numbers, the Oba-bubble has the same chance as a snowball in...a very hot place.

Sphere: Related Content

"Gird Your Loins" For An Act Of War

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” - Joe Biden, vice presidential debate, October 19th, 2008
Why that statement alone wasn't enough to persuade people to vote for the other guy is still a mystery, and water under the bridge; Biden proved his prescience nonetheless.

A Japanese news report today said that North Korea may launch a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii sometime between July 4 and 8. The report is still very fresh here in the United States - which is thirteen hours behind Tokyo - so we'll have to wait a bit longer for the reaction from the White House. Anything short of a definitive warning of retaliation will not suffice, for if North Korea launches a missile in the direction of any U.S. territory, it must be considered an act of war.

Should the warning fail to deter any such launch, Pyongyang must be bombed, and Kim Jong Il must know that it will happen. I fully expect our neophyte in charge to fail Biden's test miserably. Stay tuned...

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Prescription For America And State Run Media

On June 24th, ABC News will surrender its programming to the State and Obama, and I'll make a bet right now that no one will bat an eye. It will be sold as "business as usual", and we'll be told that posts such as this are merely the shrill protestations of right wing lunatics.

Charlie Gibson will broadcast WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House and the network will be airing a prime time special titled 'Prescription for America' from the East Room. No opposing viewpoints will be permitted, despite the fact that Republicans did request the opportunity. On top of all of this, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda, followed by nine days of promotional programming on ABC hawking the president's attempt to socialize health care.

Speaking to the AMA yesterday, Obama said quite clearly that he didn't want to socialize health care, and pundits picked up that mantra and repeated it as sufficient to allay fears of socialization. But it must be remembered that Obama also made it abundantly clear that he didn't want to own car companies and banks, he would eliminate pork barrel spending - especially in the case of the stimulus bill - and that his would be a "transparent" administration.

Now he owns the car companies and banks, the stimulus bill contained more that 8000 earmarks, and his administration is about as transparent as a slab of concrete. So when he says he doesn't want to socialize health care, brace for all-out socialization. And don't expect that transparency anytime soon, as the administration has refused requests from MSNBC and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for White House visitor logs.

CREW will file a lawsuit today against the Department of Homeland Security that accuses Obama of "following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."

Meanwhile, don't count on hearing about these things from State-run ABC.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Gore's Green Is Nothing But Cash

As Obama pushes us ever closer to the precipice of financial ruin and closer to the massive tax scheme known as "cap and trade", Al Gore rubs his greedy palms together like the dastardly landlord of folklore. While testifying before congress in May Gore declared to Congresswoman Blackburn that, “every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”
But all one has to do is follow the link to the Alliance For Climate Protection to learn the following:

The Alliance for Climate Protection has a highly experienced Board of Directors. The bipartisan Board has combined decades of experience in alliance–building with Wall Street, religious communities, local government, entertainment and other constituencies not traditionally engaged in environmental issues.

The Chairman of the Board, Al Gore, has been an advocate and leader for climate action for over 30 years.
As Duane Lester of All American Blogger so aptly stated:
"He gets a tax write-off for donating that money, and then directs where the money goes. Currently, they are spending $300 million on climate change propaganda to convince the naysayers that they are really at fault for global warming".

The following video spells out very concisely what is at stake for Al Gore if he succeeds in getting cap and trade enacted.

The irony is that global warming deniers are routinely accused of being in the tank - pardon the pun - of "big oil". They lie, we're told, because they don't want their oil investments to vanish. But no one questions Al Gore's motives for lying about the science to promote his own investments. It is also quite funny to hear a liberal like Al Gore ask Ms. Blackburn if she has something against being involved in business when he and his ilk have been doing everything in their power to denigrate corporations for decades.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Tearing Down America: The Culture Of Concession

Death and despair. Doom and gloom.

These attitudes have never been part of the American lexicon until recently, but now it is all we hear. When I think back only one short year at how terrified I was at the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton, I am forced to shake my head and smile a sardonic smile, because I don't think even she could have wreaked such devastation on my country in such short order as has Barack Hussein Obama. Nor do I believe - in retrospect - that she would have intended to do so.

To be certain, there have always been crazies running small governments and municipalities in America, but they were never more emboldened than they are now, under the reign of Obama. Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County in Michigan, is one such individual. Engaging in an exercise of abject surrender, he says that "decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity." Missing in his sentiments is the usual defiant American spirit, the will to fight and win. Surrender has crept into the consciousness and is spreading like a cancer.

As Obama and the democrats in control of congress keep hammering home the message of the end of days, people like Dan Kildee scoop up the baton and run further and faster. "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing."

I'd like to know precisely when it became so very fashionable to despise all things American. Redefining success and failure to suit an agenda of revolution is so antithetical to American values that I'm beginning to believe that the communist manifesto has borne fruit and flourished in our universities for the past 40 years.

I half jokingly said a short while ago that pretty soon we would wake up and not recognize the landscape before us. I meant it in an analogous way, but now it seems rather prescient, if I must say so myself. If these people get their way, cities will find themselves in the path of bulldozers.

When are people going to wake up and see what is happening as a result of their blindly euphoric choice last November? I hope it's before the blade of the bulldozer crashes down on their bedrooms.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 12, 2009

The Final Assault Is Under Way

I expect to be a political prisoner soon.

In my 51 years on Planet Earth, the Tea Parties across America on April 15th were the first demonstrations I have ever witnessed by conservatives. It has been my life-long experience that conservatives - myself included - have always been too busy holding down a job or two or three to amass and protest against anything. The only time we have historically had to voice our displeasure on the direction of the country has been at the dinner table.

It is very interesting to note the tone of the left in this country regarding the Tea Parties, which were peaceful gatherings at which there were no clashes with police. Yet, liberal media outlets were merciless in attacking the conservatives who attended them and attacking the events themselves. Anderson Cooper's sophomoric, snickering locker room characterization of those in attendance is a prime example. The parties seem to have jolted the left and frightened them badly, as they have begun to ramp up their rhetoric against conservatives at a dizzying stride and classify us as dangers to America.

The reason, ironically, is exactly because we have begun to alert the American people to the fact that is the liberals who are the danger to America, and our message is competing mightily with the now-state-run media.

Paul Krugman is leading the charge, using the strategy expressly endorsed by Rahm Emanuel; never let a good crisis go to waste. Exploiting the murder of Dr. George Tiller and the Holocaust museum shooter - a white supremacist - Krugman screeches yesterday his message of "grab the torches and pitchforks" and preaches fear and hatred of all things conservative. How odd that he missed the opportunity to similarly rail against the new convert to Islam who shot two soldiers in an Alabama recruiting station.

Krugman is not alone, as many media outlets specifically referred to James von Brunn, the museum shooter, as a "right wing extremist". Yet these venues never castigate the violent liberal protesters who clash with police and riot over a range of things that outrage them, such as anything environmental or military.
And yet, in 2001 when the recounts were under way in Florida, the media went apoplectic over nine nerdy-looking men and one mousy woman who - upset over the changing rules in the recounting - held their breath and stamped their feet. That event is still referred to as the "Brooks Brothers Riot".

Despite the fact that no Pintos or Mustangs were hurt in that "riot", it is still held up as an example of the dangerous right, while Molotov cocktails and burning vehicles at many liberal protests are overlooked to highlight the rubber bullets used by police, no doubt many of whom are conservatives.

Liberals have had control of our government in varying degrees and at varying times before, but this is the first time that they have had control of both houses of Congress while having a radical in control of the Executive branch, and they are launching their final assault on free speech and overall freedom right now. What is frightening is that not many are seeing it and those who are beginning to recognize it are doing it very slowly, and Obama is doing everything very quickly. See the connection yet?

They are burning our economy to the ground, they are empowering and emboldening our enemies, and they are feverishly attempting to convince the last remnants of the uncommitted that the only people who stand in the way of their final destruction are their enemies, and that salvation lays only with the liberal agenda. The left frequently asks of conservatives, "what would Jesus do"?

I have a question for the still confused and undecided: What would Satan do?

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Insanity Of The Global Justice Initiative

There was a time - not too long ago - when many of us on the right half-jokingly warned of the possibility of a President Obama being so soft on national security that he would read enemy combatants, captured on the field of battle, their Miranda Rights. Sarah Palin even mentioned it at the GOP Convention in 2008, saying of then-candidate Obama:

"Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."
Quite predictably, this was scoffed at and we were dismissed as crazed right-wingers, and Obama addressed Palin's charge directly and with an incredulous smirk. It begins at 1:55 into the video below.

Interesting it is, then, that on May 28th the Los Angeles Times reported on the "global justice" initiative and what it would mean to the former war on terror. An excerpt from the article says that, "the 'global justice' initiative starts out with the premise that virtually all suspects will end up in a U.S. or foreign court of law."

The L.A Times reports that the global justice initiative has been in the works for "several months" and yet, after Dick Cheney cautioned about Obama's weak approach to terrorism in March, Obama shot right back on 60 Minutes on March 22nd. Here's part of what he said:
"The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that, somehow, the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."
But on the heels of the Times report, The Weekly Standard reports:’s a good thing KSM [ 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad ] was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan.
Quite frankly, all of this only bolsters my numerous claims that with an allied media - which incidentally should henceforth be referred to as the U.S. National News - all someone like Barack Hussein Obama has to do when he is nailed is deny, deny, deny. And then go ahead and do what he intended to do anyway.

And all people like me can do is to keep writing about it until I get dragged away and "convicted", thus spending twelve years or so at hard labor. (I wonder if there is a North Korean version of Al Gore who will come to America and try to get me released?)

To go back to the video above, Obama said that if we encounter terrorists, we should "take 'em out". I do believe that, in light of this new policy, that's what our military will begin to do.

"You have the right to remain dead."

Sphere: Related Content

Jon Voight On O'Reilly

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Sanity Sentinel Saves Millions Of Jobs

That's right, boys and girls, using the same criteria as the Obama administration, I can say with certainty that this humble blog saved a million jobs today alone!

Saving jobs is so easy, anyone can do it. And since I have a stat-tracker for this site, I know for a fact that a million people did not read this blog today. What that means, of course, is that they also did not get caught reading it at work and therefore were not fired. I can't be certain whether or not any jobs were created, but since someone at must take my posts and make them appear for the public, I think I will claim to have created some jobs anyway.

The only danger in doing this is the fact that my little ol' blog is more likely to receive investigative scrutiny from the mainstream media than is the president of the United States. He can make any claim he pleases no matter how ludicrous, and the media merely parrots his words on the nightly news and in print. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting today:
Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.
Also from the same article, the following:
It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
So it is with great pride that I can claim to be helping to save the economy and the livelihoods of millions of my fellow Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 8, 2009

The Best Ten Minutes You Can Spend Today

Mark Levin has become the fastest growing syndicated radio host in the land for a reason. Here are ten minutes worth of those reasons:

Sphere: Related Content

First There Is A Mountain

Then there is no mountain, then there is. So said Donovan back in 1967, and so says Barack Obama today. Donovan once said the song was about an experience he had climbing a mountain in Japan. He explained that from a distance, there was a mountain, but when he was climbing it all he could see was ground, no mountain. Then, once atop the mountain, it was there again. Not as deep as some may have thought over the years.

When Barack Obama speaks of the U.S. economy, he saw a mountain, then in May said there was no mountain, but now there is again. We got into this frenzied spending binge - of money we don't have, I might add - as soon as Obama was sworn in, and we haven't slowed a bit. In fact, he now says that we need to spend more phantom money even faster.

A common theme among the mainstream media throughout George W. Bush's eight-year administration was the relentless caterwauling over the budget deficits created by the war in Iraq. The democrats joined the chorus of complaints over the spending on the military, claiming that the country couldn't possibly survive under the weight of such debt. Where are all of them now, those naysayers and opponents of "rampant spending"? Why is there virtually no one on the left pounding their shoe on the desk and demanding that this insane orgy of money burning be stopped at once?

Obama campaigned on the theme that America is a great nation and that he wanted to change it, and I believed him then. I believe him even more so now. America was once as a majestic mountain, rising above the Earth for all to see and admire. Now there is no mountain. Perhaps Obama decided to take the advice of another musician from the same era. Jimi Hendrix wrote, "Well I'm standing next to a mountain, I chop it down with the edge of my hand".

Yeah. Maybe Obama is the Voodoo Child who chops down the mountain.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Call It What It Is: Un-American

The American people have let this madness go on long enough. The problem is, too many of us have become desensitized to the numerous transgressions of our elected officials, ignoring their wanton spending of our tax dollars and the lavish lifestyles they lead while we struggle to make ends meet.

Consider that there are 435 congressmen and women and 100 senators, for a total of 535 people. Each one of those people has a significant staff serving them. House members have a government expense allowance of $1.3 million to $1.9 million annually. Senators get $2.9 million to $4.5 million. Combined with each members' salary, which averages around $184,000, and an average staff salary expenditure of $1.6 million for representatives and $3.7 million for senators, and just running the government is very expensive, roughly $1,330,040,000 per year. That's $1.3 billion dollars. And that's just for salaries. Those numbers can be verified here.

It's a lot of money, but it is fully understood that people should be paid for their work, if that's what it's called on Capitol Hill. I would not be so hasty to begrudge our elected officials their compensation if they were acting in the best interests of the people they represent, as they were sworn to do. That, however, is not the case.

Congress in May of this year authored a bill - H.R. 2346: Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 - ostensibly to fund the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq but, true to form, they were incapable of passing a bill for one, specific purpose, instead trying to tack on other spending. That in and of itself would be bad enough, but it's what they wanted to spend on is what really got to me.

Congressional Democrats tried to strip funds from the troop support aspect of the bill and add on $108 billion to bail out foreign governments through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Republicans naturally balked at such an idea and the bill now languishes in limbo. The kicker is this: the U.S. government would have had to borrow the $108 billion from China and then give it to the IMF.

Our government is supposed to work on our behalf for the betterment of its own citizenry and country. To be concerned with helping poorer nations - particularly with our economy in the shape it's in currently - is simply ludicrous. To do it at the expense of our military overseas in harms way is patently un-American.

I am not afraid to say it, and I certainly do not regret it. Click this link to write to your congressman or senator, and let them know if you agree with me.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 6, 2009

The Epitome Of Hypocrisy

What am I missing? I know there must be something to explain the complete lack of integrity embedded within the Democrat Party, but that explanation eludes me completely. I am left scratching my head in puzzlement at the antics of members of that party.

Democrats routinely endorse the release of classified and sensitive information that could damage Republicans despite the possibility that such information may pose a potential danger to America as a whole. They were all for the release of information on the alleged torture at Guantanamo, and clamored for the release of photographic evidence of it. Thankfully, President Obama felt that doing so would damage his political viability and changed course. I would prefer that his motives had been more noble, but doing the right thing is all that matters. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Nancy Pelosi has been in the hot seat ever since it was disclosed that - despite her loud protestations over the Bush administrations actions in Guantanamo - she knew about it all along and did nothing. She subsequently tried to lay blame on the former president and the CIA, but no one was buying.

Democrats on intelligence committees also lamented the fact that they were prohibited from speaking of their briefings, a restriction that they admitted made them reluctant to even attend for that very reason. But not only did they not object when information was leaked, they applauded when potentially damaging information came to light, never stopping to consider what our enemies would do with the revelations and only expressing glee at the prospect of hurting Republicans.

So it is with absolute astonishment that I learn of the Democrats fury over some Republicans having revealed that harsh interrogations yielded good intelligence that prevented attacks on America. According to Newsmax:

GOP members on the Intelligence Committee disclosed they were informed that enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding resulted in intelligence that preempted terrorist attacks. Democrats are furious that Republicans revealed information obtained in a closed-door session.

“I am absolutely shocked that members of the Intelligence committee who attended a closed-door hearing… then walked out that hearing – early, by the way – and characterized anything that happened in that hearing,” Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations chairwoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., told The Hill. “My understanding is that’s a violation of the rules. It may be more than that.”
Why do Democrats never express the same level of outrage when sensitive material is revealed to enemies of America? For some Republicans to simply disclose that questionable procedures worked is no cause for alarm, but a cause for celebration. Perhaps that is what infuriates the Democrats so deeply; A Republican administration did something right, and they just can't stand it.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 4, 2009

The Latest Amnesty Bill From Congress

House minority leader John Boehner more than adequately defines this plan.

Sphere: Related Content

When Will The Lying Stop?

When Will The Lying Stop?

The campaign is over, yet the lies continue. The Rhetoric is useless. Obama is not only lying to our own citizens, but now, he's flat out lying to the rest of the world. This is not a Muslim country. Obama denying we are a Christian nation will not change that. Has he never studied American history? Does Barack Hussein Obama really not understand that this God Blessed nation was founded, and has been operating for 200 plus years on good old Judeo - Christian values? You cannot throw our Christianity under the bus! No nation has proved more worthy of their Christian love, than this country. Look at how many of our beloved heros have gone overseas, to give their lives for the freedom of others. So, please Mr. President...stop apologizing for our country. We have nothing to be apologetic about!

Now, Obama's heritage should no longer be a secret to anyone. He has Muslim relatives, and his father was a Muslim. Barack himself, attended a Muslim school, where he was enrolled by his Mother, and his own school records show he was registered as a Muslim. No, that is not a new revelation, but it is very telling now, when he is off gallivanting all over the Middle East, professing that the United States is a Muslim nation. No, we are not! We do not believe in the same things Muslim nations believe in, nor does our Constitution mirror the Quran. So, pardon me, Mr. President, but you are a blatant liar, once again, all the while you try to appease your Muslim friends. Instead, how about you convince your Muslim friends to drop the hatred they have been embracing for the last several centuries, and tell them to denounce those that have hijacked their religion, into a radical killing machine! No, you won't do it, Mr. President, because you are not a leader, nor do you have the best interest of this country at heart. Your real loyalties are showing, Mr. President, and they have nothing to do with American Patriotism.

Perhaps it's time you came out of the closet, and quit pretending to be a Christian, that attended services that encouraged racism and hate. Perhaps it's time you admit your loyalties to your, quote "Minister" Farrakon, who is nothing more than a radical himself.

And perhaps it's time you gave up the ghost of that birth certificate you keep hiding, and admit who you are, and where you are from!

It was bad enough, when you began the take over of American businesses, in the guise of trying to save them. But, now you are attacking our moral fiber, with your pronouncements of "Gay Month". What is next Mr. President? Are you going to pronounce a Hetero month? Criminal month? Or how about Tax evader month? You certainly seem to be friendly enough with many of them!

The game is over, Barack. You are a fake. You are no leader. You are out to destroy our very core. It will not work, you underestimate the American people. Even those that voted for you are beginning to see your true colors. And they will never be red, white or blue.

If I were a clairvoyant, I'm sure I would be saying about now, that I am seeing an impeachment on the horizon.

We the people are going to take just so much.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Hip To Be Square

Back in the 1980's, Huey Lewis and the News had a hit song - Hip To Be Square - that observed that what was once considered undesirable was now in vogue. In the 60's and more so in the 70's, being square was the opposite of hip, which everyone wished to be. Once the majority of people considered themselves to be hip, it went out of fashion and as Lewis points out in the song, it suddenly became hip to be square.

During the long campaign for the presidency of the United States, the ultimate victor, Barack Hussein Obama, was hyper-sensitive on the campaign trail about his middle name, insisting that it not be used when referring to him and lashing out at those who dared to do so. John McCain actually apologized for a radio host who, announcing McCain at a campaign event, had the temerity to utter the terrible complete name of his opponent, Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama himself went out of his way to portray himself as a Christian, relying on his soon-to-be toxic pastor and his church as proof. So careful was he to avoid and conceal his Muslim roots for fear of alienating the American voters, coming so relatively close on the heels of the attacks of 9/11/2001, that his handlers and media enablers were scornful of anyone who mentioned it at all. Cable talking heads debated at length the merit of using his middle name. After all, they said, many past presidents used their middle names, why not this one?

The answer is simple; it was to conceal the truth until after the election. The tactic worked brilliantly. We now have a Muslim president, who recently declared that "if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world". But here's an example of his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Speaking to a crowd in Pennsylvania in September, 2008, he said:

"I know that I'm not your typical presidential candidate and I just want to be honest with you. I know that the temptation is to say, 'You know what? The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington. You know, he's got a funny name. You know, we're not sure about him.' And that's what the Republicans when they say this isn't about issues, it's about personalities, what they're really saying is, 'We're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections.'...Just making stuff up."
As we're now learning, the Republicans weren't "just making stuff up", and the people had every reason to be scared because what was once taboo is now perfectly a-okay. Two months ago in Ankara, Obama was introduced to the Turkish Parliament as Barack Hussein Obama, and Keith Olbermann never batted an eye or popped a vein in protest at the use of his Messiah's middle name. (The jury is still out as to whether the event sent a thrill up Chris Matthews' other leg).

There must have been a level of cognizance on the part of Obama that the American people wouldn't vote for him if he were overtly Muslim or there would have been no need to be clandestine about it in the first place. So what is it that makes him now believe that it's hip to be Muslim? Just ask him, he'll be glad to tell you. He'd likely say, "Because I won" when what he really means is, "We won".

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

On The Road Again

The next leg of his Forgive Us Our Trespasses World Tour set to take place on Thursday in Egypt, President Obama must walk a fine rhetorical line between expounding the virtues of Islam and satisfying the concerns of Human Rights Watch.

By Cynthia Johnston

CAIRO (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama must challenge Egypt's rights record during his visit to Cairo or risk lending legitimacy to harsh tactics of an authoritarian government, rights activists say.

Egypt, the most populous Arab country, has roundly celebrated Obama's choice of venue for his speech to the Muslim world on Thursday as a victory that recognizes Cairo's regional sway at the crossroads of the Arab world and Africa.

Activists say Obama must tread a careful line. Direct and public criticism of his host could rile Cairo and spark a backlash, but they hope Obama will still address abuses like police mistreatment and press for freedom on some level.

"Many Egyptians are extremely concerned that the decision to give the speech from here is in effect a good housekeeping seal," Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters in Cairo.

His group said Obama needed to combat a growing perception rights were "a second-rank concern," and Stork said he hoped the issue would not simply be relegated to private diplomacy.

Others said they were not looking for Obama to publicly dress down Egypt but still expected action at least in private.

Full Article from Reuters

Sphere: Related Content