A Good Reason For The Anger

During the eight years of the Bush administration politicians both current and former lobbed the most vile and vicious accusations at George W. Bush, from Al Gore's "He betrayed this country!", to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's "He's a loser", and the media had nothing more to say about those awful attacks on a sitting president than to report the "mood of the country".

Ordinary citizens - ginned up by a genuinely coordinated effort - were worse, often too busy interfering with military recruiting stations and causing general mayhem to express a coherent message of dissatisfaction with their government. Again, the media were only too happy to report on their antics and exaggerate their numbers at protests.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot and conservatives express their authentic outrage at the realization that the entire country is in the control of former residents of Hyde Park, Illinois, liberals of all persuasions are aghast at the reaction. Claiming that protest is suddenly the act of a terrorist, or that violence is sure to follow, it must be observed that to date, the only violence ever witnessed has been perpetrated by liberals during demonstrations. It must also be duly noted that the newly acquired practice of actually marching for a cause being exhibited by conservatives involves carrying the American flag, not burning it.

The latest Democrat politician to come out warning of the dangers of conservatives daring to voice their angst at Obama's antics is none other than Rep. Patrick Kennedy, the last member of his Royal Family to hold federal office. Claiming to corner the market on knowledge of violence, he says that he has seen it happen before to his uncles. That is certainly true, but is there any validation to his equating those times with now? Has there been even the slightest demonstration of similar tendencies by any member of the Tea Party movement, for example?

With the rapid, speedball train wreck the president and an allied Congress are attempting to inflict on an obviously unwilling populace, there must be voices of reason willing to stand up and be heard, and they must not be stifled or silenced out of an unfounded fear or a dubious claim. Rep. Kennedy says that that is not so. In fact, he uses an old cliche for backup:

"And that’s the danger in it. There is definitely freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not allow yelling ‘fire’ in the middle of a crowded movie theater.”

Memo to Patty: It is certainly within a person's right to yell "FIRE" if the theater is indeed burning. As a matter of fact, it is their duty.

Sphere: Related Content

No Time For Trivialities

On July 20th during the campaign in 2008, candidate Obama was clear on one thing; Afghanistan was "to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism". Back then he didn't need to assess the situation, he didn't need to consider his judgement, he was adamant that President Bush messed up and that more troops were needed in Afghanistan right away.

On CBS' Face The Nation that Sunday more than a year ago, Obama the candidate was sure of himself and decisive, telling CBS that "I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq". He went further, insisting that troop levels must increase in Afghanistan. Now, however, eight months into the job, it would appear that the president regards the Afghanistan situation as merely a nugatory nuisance. What has got him so distracted now?

There is a plethora of "more pressing issues" facing Obama, such as ramming an unwanted health care program down the throats of Americans, redistribution of the peoples' wealth, destroying our defenses and ignoring the proliferation of nuclear capabilities by the most dangerous elements on the planet. (It seems that he envisions a world where everyone has weapons but the U.S.).

For someone who claimed that Afghanistan would be his top priority, it should seem odd to any thinking individual that Obama has spoken with General Stanley McChrystal, the commander over there, only once since he assumed command in early July. (President Bush spoke with his commanders weekly). McChrystal has a report sitting on the president's desk that has not been looked at yet. In fact, the cleaning staff at the White House must venture into the Oval Office about once a week to do some light dusting. I'd wager the trash pails haven't needed emptying since the last occupant vacated.

So while General McChrystal awaits an answer on troop levels amid notifying sobbing parents that their soldier child has died, Obama has decided that it is of paramount importance to hurry to...Copenhagen. Certainly there must be some pending disaster in Denmark that needs the president's immediate attention. Yes, yes there is. The president is going to plead his case that Chicago should be awarded the 2016 Olympics, even though many Chicago area residents are against it. And in an ironic twist of fate, the site of the new Kyoto Convention will host both the president and the first lady, who happened to travel there on separate days...in separate planes, thus doubling their carbon footprint. Tsk, tsk...

In 2008, trying to sound authoritative, Obama said this:

"For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities."

So in 2007 he was demanding more troops but now he has to secure the Olympics for his beloved Chicago first. That's just great. I guess it was easy to sound presidential when he wasn't actually the president. He told Rick Warren that answering a question on abortion was "above his pay grade".

Perhaps being the leader of the free world is above his intelligence grade. When asked before a trip with other senators in 2008 to Iraq and Afghanistan whether he planned to have tough talk for the leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, he wimped out:

"I'm more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking. I think it is very important to recognize that I'm going over there as a U.S. senator. We have one president at a time, so it's the president's job to deliver those messages."

Good Lord, all he's done is talk, incessantly, while he tells his opposition to shut up and get out of the way. Memo to Barry: You're that guy now. This isn't community organizing, this is real. These are your decisions to make, not some czar's. You may have to actually go to work in the office on some days to address the real issues of the real world.

Sphere: Related Content

No Longer The Manchurian Candidate

Patience of legendary abundance has become the hallmark of radical Islam and - more precisely - al Qaeda. It has been our experience that these elements will plan for years or even decades to perfect the means by which they will ultimately bring the West to its knees and final surrender. Misdirection and distraction have been tactical additions to the plans of these fanatics, who actually take pride in their use of subterfuge while simultaneously claiming to be agents of God. They truly believe that theirs is a divine mission

Sometimes I envision certain scenarios and subsequently shrug them off as too fantastic, but in a world where suddenly it is considered good economic policy to spend your way out of debt by borrowing in unprecedented proportions, or where destroying jobs and incentive is somehow going to stimulate the economy, I now believe that the formerly fantastic is absolutely realistic. Enter Barack Hussein Obama.

Born into poverty, graduating to destitution and finally orphaned, Barack Obama had an origin ripe for fostering the same grievances we are told are the current motivations of radical Islamists. Early schooling in an Indonesian mosque ostensibly would only further cultivate a hatred of wealth, while instilling a parallel desire to achieve that very thing personally, a desire that has been achieved in spades.

The question still remains as to how Obama rose so quickly to prominence from such a dismal childhood, and who may have been his stake-horse throughout his ascension. The reason for this is because his is a life shrouded in secrecy and opaqueness. Just as his campaign promises of "the most transparent administration" have vanished like ashes in the wind, the history of the man remains a mystery. Certainly some tidbits have been revealed, but they have all been brushed aside as meaningless by both Obama and a nauseatingly compliant media.

Perhaps more shocking than the tenuous relationships he's had with the most unsavory characters - things which are tenuous solely because of their difficulties to prove - are the more concrete incriminations of his own words, publicized in print, audio and video. He scoffs at accusations that he wants to redistribute wealth, but he is on tape advocating that very practice. He also admitted as much to Joe the Plumber during the campaign.

Still he marches on, untethered by conventional wisdom and immune to traditional scrutiny and I, for one, am left scratching my head as to precisely why. What forces are at play that could have allowed this truly "Manchurian Candidate" to have progressed this far and this fast? Why are so many in our own media running interference for him? What are the depths of this cabal that is poised to remake our nation into that which long-standing patriots will not recognize?

There are serious questions about Obama's legitimacy being posed by legal minds such as Orly Taitz, but the waving of a piece of worthless paper seems to be sufficient for far too many people and alleged news folk like Chris Matthews. If Obama's birth certificate were so easily attainable that Hardball's Chris Matthews could cavalierly wave it in front of the camera, why would Obama retain the services of three law firms and spend nearly a million dollars to keep the document locked away in a vault in Hawaii?

Motive-seekers may earnestly look for a correlation between the Ayers/Wright connections and that of radical Islam, and that would be an understandable quest, considering the ramifications. This blog's explanation is to suggest that the proponents of the radical alteration of the very structure of the United States of America are so adamant in their desire to effect their version of Utopia that they do not consider the motives of their alleged allies, blithely accepting the allegiance of enemies to forward their agenda.

The saying says that politics make strange bedfellows. I make no certain claims where the motives of our new president are concerned, but I do wonder perpetually. Actions and reactions are witnessed by all but only the intellectually blind refuse to see, and one must wonder if love of country has been replaced by a desire for the unattainable perfection of the Marxist ideal. Do people now require the experience of actual misery before they even recognize its existence? Has history been so neglected that its lessons have become moot?

All of this has obviously not been lost on Barack Hussein Obama, who has seized on the opportunity to become the nation's historical conqueror, he who managed what no army has been capable of doing. How long has this plot been in incubation? At what point do the citizens of this still great nation realize that the fantastical ruminations of a few are actually the reality they have long dreaded? When will people awake to the realization that their freedoms are gone?

Sphere: Related Content

The Beast On The Wing

Many years ago Rod Serling wrote a story about a man who was afraid to fly, but needed to take a business trip, and had to fly. In mid- flight, in a bad storm no less, the man saw a creature on the wing furiously tearing at the aluminum skin on the wings and throwing the pieces into the engine's turbines, trying to make the plane crash. The only problem was, only he could see it and the crew and other passengers took him for a loon. He was forcibly sedated, and fortunately the plane landed safely, but once on the ground, the crew saw the damage inflicted by the beast.

Now I feel like that character as I watch Obama tear at the foundation of America while so many people go about their lives, oblivious to the danger. Everything this man is doing seems to be designed to weaken our economy and our defenses, setting America up to either be conquered or to collapse under her own weight. The combination of his actions appear to leave little to chance, ensuring that one or the other happens.

Bear in mind as you read along that the president's friends also despise America. One friend was a domestic terrorist who publicly declared war on the United States, and the other is his pastor, in whose church Obama sat for twenty years listening to anti-American rhetoric. This pastor also gloated about the September 11th attacks with the words, "America's chickens coming home to roost".

Before he was even elected, Barack Obama advocated for a civilian security force that was "just as powerful as the military and just as well funded". Thankfully, that hasn't happened...yet. Is it in the works? Your guess is as good as mine.

As soon as he was sworn in, Obama went right to work on the economy, quadrupling the national deficit and taking control of corporations and banks, ostensibly to "save them". Of course, it was really to save the unions, in the case of the auto company bailouts, and for control in the case of the banks. Cloward and Piven must be so proud of the way Obama has utilized their strategy.

Not content with a billion dollars in TARP and stimulus money, the government is spending millions and billions all over the country and the world on the most trivial of things, while farmers in California go broke because of a minnow. And the final assault on our economy is still in the works via a two-pronged attack in the form of "health care reform" and bogus attempts to "save the planet" from global warming.

Next, Obama ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison and tried to settle the terrorist prisoners here on our shores. Couple that with his insistence that troops read enemy combatants Miranda rights on the battlefield, and his appeasment of radical Islam has begun. He has been on several Forgive Us Our Trespasses tours in which he apologizes for America's transgressions and promises that we'll behave now that he is in charge.

He is alienating our allies and befriending our enemies, both near and far. Hugo Chavez and Mohammar Ghadafi think he's just swell while Gordon Brown and Benjamin Netanyahu are pretty peeved right about now. He offers to have discussions with Ahmadinejad over his nuclear ambitions, but threatens the nuclear option where Republicans are concerned, refusing to talk to them about the health care bills. He stood with the socialist Manuel Zelaya when Zelaya's Congress and military threw him out for constitutional violations, refusing to recognize Micheletti as the interim leader in Honduras and insisting that Zelaya be reinstated immediately. And he's normalized relations with Cuba and Fidel Castro, who also thinks Obama is the cat's meow.

Still not convinced that he has done enough to bring us to our knees, he has killed the F-22 Raptor program and seeks to severely diminish our nuclear capability, while standing by silently as those who wish us harm ramp up their own programs, and still others mull getting into the "game" for the first time. Brazil is now saying that they want to build nukes.

And now...the Obama administration is going to cut the size of the border patrol on our border with Mexico by 384 agents. Saving money would not be a good reason for this, but that's not even it, because they are going to increase the border patrol along Canada, by 414! Yet, no one - particularly in the media - seems to notice Obama furiously ripping our nation to shreds. No one seems to notice his footprints all over the constitution.

I notice, and - to quote the Ramones - "I wanna be sedated", at least until we're safely back on the ground. I just hope the damage we see when it's all over is not beyond repair.

Sphere: Related Content

Palestine In Pittsburgh

Forgive the misleading title, as I was unable to resist the alliterative title combined with the correlation to rock throwing. That being said, the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh has already drawn out the crazed, anti-capitalist anarchists who will no doubt be spared the scrutiny and ridicule heaped upon those "Tea Baggers" from two weeks ago. The alleged grievances by this group will either be portrayed as somehow legitimate, or the media will melt down in trying to advance their agenda while protecting their king, Obama.

In fact, the press has already tried to distance the president from the protests ongoing prior to his arrival, giving the impression that he was bravely entering the land of hostility and turmoil. See the quote from the AP:

"The march turned chaotic at just about the time that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama arrived for a meeting with leaders of the world's major economies."

How that is so reminiscent of the "hazards" now Secretary Clinton faced on the tarmac in Bosnia so many years ago. While Hillary Clinton's "ordeal" was entirely fabricated, however, Obama and his state run media have the benefit of actual photography and footage to bolster the false impression of peril. I predict that Obama will have a photo-op, Messianic moment of assuaging the crowd of protesters while legitimizing their mission.

The only difficulty they will face is the question of true anarchists, though, who theoretically should be more at odds with Obama than they would have been with any other president in history. The conundrum lies in conflicting factions of ideology. While the anarchists are against virtually any form of government, Obama is actively attempting to turn people into genuine slaves of the state.

Then again, both the anarchists and Obama have a deep-seated loathing for capitalism, and whoever said that politics makes strange bedfellows was certainly no idiot. While I engage in pure speculation, I may not be completely off the mark if I suggest that these "free spirits" who claim to despise wealth and any form of authority are also a well organized militia whose goal is to arrive at these summits, as they have for years, to cause massive disruptions. In order to have such a concerted effort, there must be an organizational chart or, for the more savvy individual, a chain of command. Wouldn't this be an anathema to the "principle" of anarchy?

Also a prerequisite would be money which, for such a coordinated effort, would not only require the acquistion of funds but the subsequent management thereof. See the rigid structure forming in this allegedly free-wheeling group?

Compare the protests in Pittsburgh with those of Washington D.C. on September 12th. Compare the demeanor of both crowds. Compare the reports of the size of both crowds. And compare the coverage each receives. And while Obama fled the capital on 9/12 like Eva Peron, let's see if he addresses this crowd. I admit, that may be a bit of a stretch, but I am becoming less and less surprised by the audacity of Hope and Change.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Hussein Obomnipotent

How Did We Ever Survive Without Him?

To listen to the president tell it at the U.N. General Assembly yesterday, Obama has simultaneously made America both better and more liked. Our nation was formerly an arrogant, festering cesspool of greedy people and overbearing leadership until he got elected as its leader. He tells the world body that he - in just nine months - has singlehandedly succeeded in destroying the country he grew up loathing, and has transformed it into that which he has always envisioned; a nation of contrition bordering on subservience to the rest of the world.

The first U.S. president to outwardly embrace the interests of everyone but those to whom he swore an oath, and to the constitution he vowed to uphold and defend, Obama spoke with self-congratulatory grandeur before the Assembly, extolling the virtues of...himself. Like a child giddily presenting his mother with an ugly clay ashtray made in art class (look what I made you!), Obama proudly declared the first of his "accomplishments" as having banned the use of torture, and the assembly dutifully applauded and placed the atrocious "art" in a prominent location with a smile.

The only problem is that - despite the shrill and pompous cries of those who were queasy at the stern questioning of detainees - torture already was banned by the United States, so his first accomplishment was meaningless...how appropriate. He then offered up another gem that only a mother could pretend to love, beaming over his order to close Guantanamo Bay. It is clear that this was an act of appeasement of America's critics since he also wanted to bring the prisoners here, something the American people did not want at all.

The entire tone of his speech was one of conceit and a notion that he had rescued America from itself; that with but a wave of his glorious hand, he had made the ugly Americans suddenly more palatable to a much uglier crowd of barbaric dictators.

(It is a similar approach to his domestic agenda, which is to drag everyone down to a base level of despair in order to achieve a harmonic balance of the masses. But what no one has the courage to admit is the fact that America has been the big brother to the world and without us as that figure, who is left to turn to in times of crisis?)

His rhetoric then went on to throw a former ally under the bus. I say former because he made it abundantly clear yesterday that he is no friend of Israel, calling their very existence an occupation while calling for a rollback of the borders established in 1967 by virtue of Israel's defeating several enemies in six days after coming under attack. (To see Benjamin Netanyahu's reaction today to Ahmadinejad's reception, watch this video):

Despite the numerous concessions over the years by Israel in a desperate quest for final peace, Obama thinks that he now has the answer; more concessions. Never mind that all past pulling-in of the borders only meant that Hamas had to shorten the range of their rocket attacks, Obama still thinks that the ultimate definition of insanity will succeed. That definition is the repetition of the same methods over and over again, expecting a different result.

Finally, he spoke magnificently about how the need for action was nigh, and that rhetoric alone would accomplish nothing. The time for talk was over, he said. And yet, for nine months, what has President Obama done but talk? He has been on the road so much, speaking, that I would wager that his only familiarity with the Oval Office is derived solely from his transition meeting with outgoing President Bush after the election.

Action was required months ago when Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent a report to the president seeking more troops in Afghanistan, but the president has been too busy at speaking engagements around the world and the nation. Meanwhile troops are dying in that mountainous country while the report collects dust in the dark and quiet Oval Office. It appears that the president does have his limits and can only destroy one country at a time. Afghanistan will have to wait.

How did we get along without him? I cannot wait for the time to reminisce.

Sphere: Related Content

A Real Sign Of Hope

Congressional House Minority Leader John Boehner appeared on Meet The Press today after the president had been a guest of host of David Gregory. What he had to say was a sign of hope for the patriots who descended on Washington D.C. on September 12th as well as for the multitudes who share the visions and dreams of those marchers. Here's what he said:

“There’s been no bipartisan conversation on Capitol Hill about health care. At some point when these big government plans fail—and they will, the Congress will not pass this—it’s really time for the president to hit the reset button, just stop all of this and let’s sit down and start over in a bipartisan way to build a plan that Americans will support.”

When pressed by Gregory as to whether the Congressman thought this bill was dead, Boehner responded, "I think it is".

Before I begin my celebratory dance, I must speculate on the prescience of Boehner and his motivation for speaking such. It may well be an opening salvo in the public relations war that is certain to follow if the Democrats pass this legislative boondoggle with no Republican participation. On the other hand, Boehner may simply be revealing inside knowledge designed to allay the fears of his broader constituency; the entire opposition movement to socialized medicine.

For the president's part, he is sticking to his guns by refusing to either acknowledge the "mood" of the people or admitting that the plan is flawed. Instead, he whines about press coverage, of all things:

“I mean, let's face it,” said Obama, “If you look at the news cycle over the last--over the last week--you know, it—it--it hasn't been the--the sensible people who, you know, very deliberately talk about the important issues that we face as a country. That's not the folks who've gotten a lot of coverage.”

Sir, who has gotten a lot of coverage? The Tea Party protesters? How comatose do you really believe the American people to be? For someone who should be in the Guiness Book of World Records for most speeches, addresses and media coverage of a U.S. president, such plaintive caterwauling is an outright embarassment, deserving no less than a serenade from the world's smallest violin.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that Boehner's assessment is accurate and that the people who have spoken get their first major victory for liberty since they quashed the illegal immigrant amnesty bill last year. Can I get an AMEN?

Sphere: Related Content

America's Future

Sphere: Related Content

Time To Grow Up

A pointed response to Raina Kelley's Newsweek article

Dear Ms. Kelley...there is no monster under your bed and no goblin in your closet. The latter contains nothing but clothing and shoes, the former only a few stray dust bunnies.

Your article begins with the soft-serve equivocation "some", as in, "Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: some of the protests against President Obama are howls of rage at the fact that we have an African-American head of state." With such a cowardly swipe at the voices of dissent, cleverly hidden behind an anemic attempt at disguising your own accusatory tone, you set the stage for confrontation, something you claim is beyond the fortitude of "most" whites. I am here to dispel your naive notion.

Your article may be considered well written and your argument lucid, but that would only be true if not for the fact that the expiration date on your points has long passed. Your product is now considered a detriment to the mental health of its consumers. And your lamentation that there are no takers for the debate is flat wrong.

We are exhausted at having our invitations continually tossed on the trash heap and then being accused of exclusion. We are offended at having our hands slapped away every time we reach out, only to be subsequently labelled as racists. And, to be brutally honest, we are completely confounded by the cottage industry created by charlatans whose sustenance depends on perpetuating the same sort of plaintive victimhood described in your article.

What would Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson do with themselves if their crusade should end? What would happen to the boisterous minority of "black victims" if their standard excuse for failure evaporated. No, there is a reason why racism won't completely die, and that reason is simply because its victims keep resuscitating it which in turn rankles the sensibilities of normal whites who are sick and tired of hearing it. We're not afraid of the discussion; we're simply fed up with it.

We're also disgusted by the selective outrage. No one in the black community even raised a whimper when liberals portrayed Condi Rice in filthy, stereotypical cartoons. There was no dissent when, in 2002 Harry Belafonte said about a four-star general:

"There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master."

While it is undeniable that there are still white dolts who cannot accept a black person at their table, they are an incredibly small minority. The white people who protest the loudest these days are those who have become sickened by the abject refusal of the equally small minority of blacks to accept that they are indeed welcome. Normal blacks and whites who co-congregate at pubs or backyard barbecues across America look at each other in bewildered wonderment if a nearby television broadcasts a "report" with the same tone as yours.

With all of that said, let's examine your case that whites who are opposed to Obama's insane policies are closet racists who use "code words" when voicing their discontent. What then of the multitudes of blacks who feel the same way about him? Are they motivated by the fact that Obama is half white? Are their words code for Obama's not being "black enough"? These are questions that you should consider.

In the meantime, no amount of ridiculous accusation will silence us, both black and white, who cannot fathom the destruction being perpetrated by this president. Your claim that we're afraid of the topic is moldy and, therefore, ineffective. Once we were held down for fear of offending someone, but no more. Our silence did nothing to placate those who will not be placated, so it's time to speak up. You have the right to be offended, but not to cease the perceived offense.

Consider this right progress.

Sphere: Related Content

Liar, Liar

Remember when Joe Wilson called the president a liar, and was revered for it by the left? No, not the Congressman Joe Wilson...the former ambassador Joe Wilson. The man who went on a "fact-finding" mission to Nigeria to find about that yellow cake uranium that then-President Bush mentioned in a State of the Union speech. The man who claimed that Bush lied, and "proved it" by vacationing in Nigeria for a week.

Granted, he didn't accuse Bush of lying in the House chamber, and this Joe Wilson is not an elected official, but Democrats held him up as a hero for "outing the Bush lies". He was not chastised for calling the president a liar. Nor was the former vice president, Al Gore, taken to task for shrieking that Bush "betrayed this country".

But Rep. Joe Wilson, in a brief moment of passion for which he quickly apologized - and one in which he was quite correct in his accusation - has been raked over the coals and dragged through the mud. He's been accused of racism simply for demanding honesty from the president.

And yet, in the midst of all that angst, Obama quickly moved to provide that illegal aliens would not be covered, something he lied about in his speech to a joint session of Congress. It is reminiscent of the non-existent "death panels" being likewise removed from the health care proposal. Ambassador Joe Wilson never had that sort of vindication, but it didn't stop the left from hailing him as a giant slayer. Congressman Joe Wilson is simply a victim of being on the wrong side of the aisle; the Right.

Sphere: Related Content

Smelling The Coffee

Rasmussen reports that 53% of Americans are opposed to health care overhauls, and the Democrats remain determined to march forward. Tea Party protests draw ever larger and more diverse crowds, and Democrats continue to rally around Obama's socialist vision for America. Joe Wilson reaches the breaking point at a joint session presidential address and Democrats launch into tirades of outrage and retribution, which also spawns a disgusting series of accusations of racism against patriots who refuse to be tread upon.

For weeks this vitriol and argumentativeness has gone on, and it now appears that the only people who actually had an inkling as to what was being planned have been those "racists" and "domestic terrorists". The elected officials we sent to represent us haven't had the time or acumen to discern that which they were advocating, but a handful of intrepid journalists and citizens managed to digest it and have been shouting from the rooftops that it was all a bad idea. Oh yeah...Joe Wilson also read the bill. Ain't life funny?

Now, with sudden cognizance, some Democrats have been acquainted with the Max Baucus (D-MT) version of the bill, and they are in a sort of slow-motion revolt. Many in the "party of the little guy" *cough* have been alarmed at the methods by which Baucus would fund this deadly endeavor. True to socialist form, Baucus wants anyone with a "cadillac policy" to be taxed on their benefits.

From the AP article:

To pay for the 10-year, $856 billion bill Baucus wants to tax high-value insurance plans, those worth $21,000 for a family and $8,000 for an individual. Baucus says those are "Cadillac plans" enjoyed by a small minority of Americans. Aides said about 10 percent of plans and 8 percent of taxpayers could be affected.

Consider that Baucus wants to penalize anyone who can afford a "cadillac plan" by forcefully making them fund the plans of the "poor". Then consider the Canadian model, which prohibits the private payment for treatment due to its inherent "unfairness" factor. Then add the two together and see what your equation yields.

So now Congressional Democrats - fully aware of the toxic future that awaits them next election cycle - are furiously backing away from this type of plan. There can be no denying, however, of their completely socialist ideology and disregard for the rights of the individual. They want to make this happen at any cost, and they don't care because the cost will be to anonymous individuals, never coming in close proximity to their own substantial bank accounts.

To be certain, there is a level of glee as I write this, attributed to the hope that no matter what the motivations of these politicians, I am encouraged at the dissent being exhibited. If they manage to fumble this particular football, original intent will naturally take a back seat.

Sphere: Related Content

Stacking The Deck

First they wooed Arlen Specter over to their side, then they screwed Norm Coleman in Minnesota. They wanted that 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, did the Democrats, and they would get it by hook or by crook. Then Robert Byrd fell ill, becoming a liability due to his chronic absence from debates and votes, and Ted Kennedy passed away, effectively pushing them back to 58 votes.

Now the Obama White House is meddling in states affairs by lobbying the Massachusetts legislature to change their law regarding a vacated U.S. Senate seat. Currently, the law states that there must be a special election for the seat no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after a vacancy occurs, and prohibits an interim appointment by the governor. No matter, for Democrats, laws were made to be either changed or broken. After all, they've done it before, in the same state.

Prior to 2004, Massachusetts law allowed for the interim appointment of a vacated senate seat by the governor. The only problem at the time was that long-sitting senator John Kerry was making a run for the White House and, if victorious, would have left his Democratic seat open for the governor to replace him. And since the governor at the time was Mitt Romney, a (gasp!) Republican, the Democrats moved swiftly to change the law to prevent that from happening.

With Obama desperate to inflict his health care monstrosity upon an unwilling nation, the senate leadership is poised to exercise the "nuclear option", changing the rules to require a simple majority for passage of a bill instead of the requisite two-thirds. In effect, they would pass it without Republicans even participating, but they know they risk a severe backlash from the people if they do that.

Since they clearly believe that the American people are either stupid or, at the least, have short memories, they are trying to choose the easier rule to change and foist on the people an allegedly rational explanation as to why it must be done. It should be obvious to everyone that all they are trying to do is stack the deck from which they will then deal from the bottom.

Sphere: Related Content

Gulliver Rises

For too long now, liberals have enjoyed the green pastures made possible by the reticence of the right to engage in the battle, giving them a false sense of might. As their Lilliputian swagger has made them drunk with the misguided notion that the world is theirs to rule, and while they have deluded themselves into believing that they have become a majority, they have succeeded in awakening a giant who remained silent for as long as he could bear.

The election of a virtual unknown in Barack Obama further enhanced this false impression that somehow, most of America was ready to roll over and be crushed. Then something remarkable happened; the giant awoke, effortlessly snapping the puny twine that held him to the ground. Predictably, the Lilliputians have reacted with fear and slung arrows, which have only bounced off of the intended target.

As the White House and Congressional Democrats flail feebly at the Tea Party folks, using every vile tactic to get them to shut up, the suddenly-vocal have used that fear as the fuel to keep them growing stronger. Accusations of racism are harmlessly batted aside, having no effect at all on the accused, and denigration is a tactic that has become completely ineffective. The tools of the leftist agenda have become obsolete, and they have no time to design new ones. The giant has risen.

Just as the Lilliputians thought that surely Gulliver would angrily vent his rage by stomping them all to smithereens and destroying their village, liberals are afraid of the Tea Party movement. This is because they truly believe that we are out to destroy all that they have attempted to create. That is true, to a large degree, but it is not out of anger; it is because we want to pull all of the wayward ships back to safety and give the people back their country.

This giant is a benevolent one. He's just portrayed in a different light by the true enemy of America, and while he is by no means new to this land, he is indeed new to this time. Slumber has been long, and the cobwebs thick, but as the giant slowly regains a cognizance of his current landscape and the scales of unconsciousness fall away, a renewal of righteous things will begin to emerge.

Tea Party goers, take heart...yours is not nearly a futile endeavor. A faint heart at this critical juncture may well be your undoing, as that is precisely the goal of our political foe. Do not be duped into believing that yours is a wasted enterprise. The level of alarm should be more than enough evidence of that simple fact.

Sphere: Related Content

We The People Spoke

We The People Spoke

(A first hand account of the 912 March on DC)

I am not a terrorist. I am not normally an activist. I have never attended any kind of a protest in my life...until now! I’m simply an American, concerned about the direction this new leadership is trying to take my country. So, I decided to step out of my box, and into helping my nation go down a new path. My first steps were right down Pennsylvania Avenue on Saturday morning. From the moment we arrived at the staging area, and saw hundreds of thousands of likeminded people already assembling 3 hours before the March was scheduled to start, I knew I was in the right place, at the right time. There were so many of us, far more than a million…probably closer to 2 million, that the DC police, requested to march begin a full hour early, because the streets were so congested, and they had nowhere else to go.

When we arrived in Washington DC, we began meeting people at our hotel, that were there for the same reason. While we all got there by different modes, some flew in, some rode their motorcycles, some came on buses, and some drove all the way across the nation. But we all came for the same reason….to take our country back, and to save it from the wrong direction. We were black and white, young (many with their children), and old. We were independents, republicans, and yes, even plenty of democrats. This was a wide representation of what real America is. We all were here to express our freedom of speech, and demand our constitution be followed, and our nation remains, of the people, for the people. No one organized us to come, and no one paid our way. We were there, because we knew we needed to be there.

I cannot even begin to express the emotions going through me, as I marched down the street, will a million of my fellow citizens, toward our Capitol. I was proud, and I was overwhelmed with patriotism, and
Love for my country. We held our signs high, we chanted for real change, and no more bail-outs. We sang, “God Bless America”. And we thanked each other for coming. It was a peaceful march, the entire way. These people were here, not to cause any trouble, but instead they were here to voice their demands that our government give us the true representation we were afforded by our wise founders in our constitution.
We were there to be heard. Now, while Obama and Company, and their bought and paid for media still insist on denying the true numbers and the impact of our march, I know full well that the showing we made there Saturday must have them very concerned about their own futures, as they should be. We do not only march, but we also vote. And we will be cleaning house next year, in the mid-term elections.

When we reached the Capitol, I looked back, and as far as I could see, all way back down Pennsylvania Ave. behind me, it was still wall-to-wall citizens, marching behind me. My heart swelled with pride. The sleeping giants…the true American patriots had finally awakened, and they were ready to take back their government. As we gathered at the capital….we could not get very close, because it was so crowed, but no one pushed or shoved, or got irritable. Everyone was pleasant, courteous, and eager to listen to the speakers. There were no big headline speakers scheduled. We didn’t need them. But, be sure…we were not really there to hear them. We were the speakers, and that march spoke volumes. We must never stop speaking up for our rights and freedoms, and demanding our constitution be followed to the letter. It has made us the greatest country on earth. It was time to take our country back, and we are doing it. Most all of us agree that there is always room for change, and improvement, but we must follow the letter of the law. And we must always listen to what the people want. We are not a nation that needs to be controlled. Not now, not ever. Real change is coming! People are getting involved!

We the people spoke!

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's New Hat

Despite the massive juggernaut that the Tea Party Express has become, the man who would be king has been stumping around the nation basically telling friendly crowds that "they can't stop us". Despite the latest Rasmussen poll, showing that 53% of the American people are opposed to Obama's health care plan, he is pushing Congress to ram the plan down our throats anyway. This is called ruling, not representing. While he claims that the 2008 electoral margin gave him a mandate to rush his agenda along, suddenly a majority is meaningless?

With a compliant media helping to downplay the magnitude of Saturday's protest in the nations capital, Democrats continue to insist that the tea parties represent "a small minority" of voters. This is disingenuous, to be charitable. Denigrating angry constituents at town hall meetings has become blood sport for out-of-control politicians, and claims by Obama that our side is using "scare tactics" is nothing more than psychological projection.

In his radio address the other day, Obama actually said that unless we act now, 50% of the American people could find themselves uninsured, which is simply a ridiculous statement for the president to make. For half of the people - most of whom have medical insurance through their employers - to lose their coverage, unemployment would have to reach roughly 40%.

In his speech to Congress Wednesday night, he made the ludicrous statement that the health care plan would be paid for by reducing waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. The question should be, why not reduce waste and fraud in those two government-run programs first, and then we'll see how well they function before we add another gargantuan government-run program onto the backs of the taxpayers?

And on 60 Minutes, he claimed that he has "every incentive to get it right" because he'd own whatever happened. This is an outright lie. Anything that goes wrong will undoubtedly be somehow blamed on Republican "saboteurs". Obama told us that no one making less than $250,000 would see any of their taxes raised, "not one dime". Then he slammed rich and poor alike with a sixty-cent tax on cigarettes. He told us that as long as we passed the stimulus fiasco quickly, unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. It now stands at 9.7%, so why should we believe a word this man says?

If there is anyone out there who believes in the good intentions of this president, particularly today, I have some sobering news. While it is arguable that Obama and Congressional Democrats are learned folk, theirs is an agenda driven by potential legacy and their place in history and has nothing at all to do with service to America and the betterment of our nation. To take it one step further, I believe that the actions thus far by Obama point to a delibeate attempt to cause the United States to fall. There is simply no explanation of his policies that makes sense.

The only thing stopping him from moving a throne into the Oval Office is the people and the wrath that has been exhibited this year. How else would one explain the halting steps being taken while enjoying complete contol of two branches of the government?

It should prove most entertaining to watch how this buffoon deals with a suddenly hostile Congress in 2011.

Sphere: Related Content

A Multitude Of Insignificance

Photo Courtesy Of SleeplessByTheSea

Perhaps it should be a surprise at all that the mainstream media is even mentioning yesterday's huge protest in D.C. by the Tea Party Express, but the manner in which they're characterizing the march is no surprise.

Two different headlines tell the story:

Thousands Rally in Capital to Protest Big Government - New York Times

Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama's spending in 'tea-party' demonstration - UK's Daily Mail

Thousands, or two million? Since our friends across the ocean have no political stake in all of this, I will take their word for it. I am also relying on people who were actually there and part of that massive crowd and who heard from park police on the scene that the unofficial estimate was closer to two million than "tens of thousands", as the Times, NPR, and the AP would have us believe.

How strange that these outlets would try to deceive the readers. Stranger still is the Times' complaint that "as they sang verse after verse of patriotic hymns like 'God Bless America,' sharp words of profane and political criticism were aimed at Mr. Obama and Congress." Profanity? At an angry rally? Good Heavens, no! While I have no specific example, I muse that this is the same newspaper that would cover a violent liberal protest, in which a police car is burned, and characterize the event as "anger at George Bush boiling over".

The most stunning reaction, however, comes from the vegetative state of Congressional Democrats, who have decided to dismiss the mood of the people altogether. According to the Washington Post,

"The White House declined to comment on the demonstration, but Democrats said the rally and other protests in recent months represent a small minority of voters and will not slow Obama's proposals."

Such contempt certainly is not endearing to a constituency that holds the pink slips sure to be distributed in 2010. What is most puzzling is why the Republicans have not seized upon this movement, as they are equal targets of voter ire next year. It seems that both sides of the aisle are determined to help us set the record for most freshman representatives in a single year.

We shall see then just how insignificant we really are. That is, of course, provided that ACORN is not counting the ballots.

Sphere: Related Content

A Day Of Reckoning

It should never have come to this, but I have always been a believer in the axiom that "God works in mysterious ways". While today was a day of somber reflection on the events of eight years ago, it shall be followed up tomorrow, in our nation's capital, by a raucous reclamation of our country.

Still amazed, am I, at the spectacle of massive conservative protests and demonstrations, almost embarrassed at the term "marching", but I have never been more proud of my ideological brethren than I am today, and expect that my breast will burst with pride come tomorrow. According to an article by Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times, tomorrow could be "the largest gathering of fiscal conservatives ever". I believe it, as I have received a report from a good friend who is there, and who reports that the town is jam packed with motivated people.

Contrary to the characterization by our evidently deaf and blind elected officials who have tried to portray this movement as "astroturf" - suggesting that the angry mobs were somehow manifestations of "evil" talk radio and Fox News - this is a genuine and sincere happening. What Tea Party Express has managed to do is not to organize people into believing something and taking to the streets, but rather to coalesce a collection of already-angry groups into a larger body with more clout than each had separately.

The true reason that any of this has happened at all is simply because the left became such a force by virtue of the very tactics they now accuse the right of engaging in, and it is for that reason that reason will prevail. The left came to prominence by trolling every individual urchin it could collect or create and became a behemoth with poor glue. The conservative movement now afoot is more deliberate, more cohesive, and more cognizant of its environment.

These are not citizens who were cultivated by an ideological machine and instructed to rail against the nation that gave them a voice with which to protest. They are not the citizens who were steered into "poverty" so that they would one day rise against the "capitalist machine". They are not people who get their news from quick headlines or a group of cackling liberal women on a daytime talk show.

No, they are people who have worked their fingers to the bone while exercising their right to the pursuit of happiness, and who are now seeing their labors reduced to wasted time. They are people who have familiarized themselves with our founding documents and understand their meaning. And they are also people who shall prove tomorrow how formidable an informed populace can be when pushed to the brink.

For the record, I did not get permission from Tea Party Express to use their logo. I operated on the assumption that a supportive viewpoint would be acceptable, and will remove it at the first complaint from that noble organization. I wish for exceptional weather for our troops in D.C. tomorrow, and great success for us all. Give 'em Hell, gang!

Sphere: Related Content

The American Perestroika

As Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress steamroll their way toward the false utopia of their childhood dreams, despite the high-decibel and often rambunctious protestations of the people they allegedly serve, we are reminded of a Russian term that describes this attempted radical restructuring of our nation: "perestroika". It was the label placed on Mikhail Gorbachev's maneuverings when he ran the troubled and collapsing Soviet Union, and also the title of his book.

While Gorbachev was generally viewed favorably because of his reform of the Soviet Union from that of a command economy to a market economy, the growing pains were more than the people could bear. Having become so dependent on the Soviet government's "handling" of their everyday concerns, once set free they had no idea of how to deal with fending for themselves. Long lines for free bread and cheese were an inconvenience; not being able to afford them once they were plentiful and priced for the market value became intolerable, and the new capitalist approach was blamed for their woes. Freedom took a back seat.

How strange, then, that Gorbachev was watching our election so intently that three days after Obama won, he called on the newly elected president to carry out perestroika in the U.S. Couple that with the exuberant reactions of many of our enemies, both former and current, to Obama's ascension to the presidency, and one must question one's own judgement on November 4th, 2008.

Even stranger is the willing acceptance by those who did err on election day of the clearly detrimental policies this president has already embarked upon, cheering new powers assumed, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, simply because they "feel good" about the expected results. No matter how people may feel about health care, the fact remains that there is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to provide the individual with free doctor visits. If the behemoth that our government has become would cease and desist from its insatiable confiscatory taxation, perhaps more people would be able to actually afford that visit.

The true irony is this, however; while Gorbachev nearly lost his country as a result of trying to free it from decades of enslavement, Obama is entering the initial stages of the enslavement phase, from which we may have to endure decades of pain until we emerge, not unscathed, at the other end. Everyone must resist the implementation of a such a plan and encourage conservative politicians to stand fast against this insidious tide.

Sphere: Related Content

Blowing The Lid Off

As the candle of hope flickers weakly against the increasing breeze, change is roaring ahead with gusto.

The increase in the national debt that took the Bush administration eight years to accomplish has been matched by the Obama administration in eight months, and Obama is just tuning up, with projections showing he will dwarf the debt increase by the end of his term (if there is an end).

While media outlets were aghast at the now-comparably meager spending of "W" - and Democratic politicians were allegedly enraged at the misuse of the taxpayers' money - the current orgy of rampant spending and the headlong charge into fiscal oblivion is greeted with not a yawn, but collective cheers from former opponents of such malfeasance.

Obama, who as a senator voted against a Bush request to congress to raise the debt ceiling, is now asking that the ceiling be raised above $12 trillion. In a floor speech in 2006 before a Senate vote to raise the debt limit, then-Senator Obama had this to say:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Funny how there are no senators today saying the same thing. Perhaps more intriguing is that in April, the House of Representatives voted to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion while sheilding themselves from their constituents by utilizing the "Gephardt rule", which did not require a roll call vote.

(Side note: These are the same politicians who wish to institute "card check" for union votes.)

The Heritage Foundation has a chart on their website which outlines what is in store for America if Obama is left unchecked in his assault on our economy. Right out of the gate, the line of this administration is nearly vertical, while its most recent predecessors have been almost flat by comparison.

Not only has Switzerland surpassed the U.S. in the World Economic Forum rankings, and China has expressed alarm at the Fed's printing money willy-nilly, now the U.N. is pushing for a new "world currency" to replace the dollar. It's almost as if the nation has experienced semi-consciousness brought on by the whiplash of Obama's jackrabbit start. Obama is finding new urgencies on which we're told that we must spend more and faster, and by the time his passengers awake from the stupor, we may find ourselves sinking below a certain bridge in Chappaquiddick.

At what point does any member of congress wake up and realize that there may just possibly be machinations at play that will be ultimately detrimental to the survival of the United States as we know it?

Sphere: Related Content

A Mighty Oak In The Oval Office

"Mighty Oaks from little acorns grow." —Olde English Proverb

While capitalism was never claimed to be the perfect system, it still must be noted that it is a better system than any other on the planet. How else would one explain that in America, even the poor have personal computers and the homeless, cellphones? The bigger question, however, is why are so many out to destroy it and replace it with a system of equal misery for all?

All throughout the long campaign for the White House reports bubbled to the surface regarding Obama's associations and their significance, and each time the mainstream media quickly laid a camouflage blanket over them. Even today, as the administration gives bundles of taxpayer money to ACORN, the organization is never scrutinized but rather, hailed as a champion of the poor. That characterization is off the mark, as ACORN exploits the poor for the purpose of advancing their anti-capitalist agenda.

In the spring of 2003, just over six years ago, Sol Stern wrote an article titled ACORN'S Nutty Regime for Cities in which he lays out the genesis of ACORN and the movement to take over America one city at a time. In it he writes:

"The largest radical group in the country, ACORN has 120,000 dues-paying members, chapters in 700 poor neighborhoods in 50 cities, and 30 years’ experience. It boasts two radio stations, a housing corporation, a law office, and affiliate relationships with a host of trade-union locals. Not only big, it is effective, with some remarkable successes in getting municipalities and state legislatures to enact its radical policy goals into law."

In just six years, those statistics have changed dramatically. ACORN now boasts a membership of over 400,000 and 850 chapters in over 100 cities in the United States and in other countries, as well.

Founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado, ACORN was an off-shoot of an organization called the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). The NWRO was founded by a mentor of Rathke's, George Alvin Wiley who, interestingly according to DiscovertheNetworks.org, is "one of the earliest and most successful practitioners of the 'change-through-crisis' formula prescribed by the 'Cloward-Piven strategy'".

Also according to Sol Stern:

"[ACORN] promotes a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor. As a result, not only does it harm the poor it claims to serve; it is also a serious threat to the urban future."

Therein lies the danger. While projecting a veneer of benevolence, ACORN is actually promoting a culture of dependence which will allow them to ultimately control the lives of the very people they claim to be assisting, while they are equally counting on deeper and deeper levels and numbers of such sheep to keep them in business. Call it the "Al Sharpton-Jesse Jackson" method on mega doses of steroids.

The more these masses succumb to a form of the Stockholm Syndrome, the easier it is to get them to become foot soldiers in the "struggle", thus growing the ranks exponentially until they have taken over. So where does Obama fit in to all of this?

In his early "community-organizer" days, one woman was so impressed with Obama's "organizing skills" that she recruited him to train her staff. She was Madeline Talbot and her staff were members of the Chicago ACORN branch. On July 31st. 1997, Talbot led 200 ACORN members on a rampage at a Chicago City Council debate on the living wage in which the group knocked over a metal detector and table, and pushed police up against the doors. Six were arrested that day, including Talbot.

In an incident more directly involving Obama, and one held up to bolster Obama's racial diversity in organizing, Stanley Kurtz writes:

"To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan 'actions' that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a 'surprise visit' to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out."

One more quote from Kurtz:

"With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were 'old friends,' says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as 'the Senator from Acorn.'"

In Stern's article, his byline was, "The nation’s largest left-wing group is trying to make a revolution, one city at a time. And it is getting results." That is the understatement of the ages, as ACORN has graduated from the insidious sapling tactics of taking over America one town at a time; they have grown into a mighty oak tree at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sphere: Related Content

Your "Training" Begins In Five Days

How many teachers can be fired at once? In five days, on what for many children will be the first day of the school year, President Obama will deliver a speech via webcast into every public school classroom across the nation. Will all of those teachers be fired as a result of the propaganda on display in their classrooms? My best guess would be a resounding no. There has always been a different set of rules for Democrats and liberals.

For Republicans and conservatives, such a display would be grounds for immediate dismissal. Just ask Shiba Pillai-Diaz, a New Jersey middle school teacher who was fired in 2004 because she had a photograph of the president and first lady on her wall. The problem was that it was President Bush, and the principal ordered it taken down. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she was terminated. Ironically, one of the reasons was an accusation of "suppression of free speech", which came about because she refused to discuss her political views with her students. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most parents should expect that teachers keep their political opinions to themselves.

As parents across the country begin to protest this intrusion into the lives and minds of their children, liberal groups will subsequently start calling those parents and their advocates "right wing kooks". This is a prediction I make with virtually no trepidation, and I also know that the webcast will be defended by the left as something innocuous. But let's face it...Obama is not merely going to read My Pet Goat to them.

The Obama administration and the Dept. of Education have carefully choreographed this event, sending out specific instruction packets to teachers in what to discuss and when to discuss it. This will not be a speech in which the president simply beseeches the children to be good students and study hard, or to listen to their mommies and daddies. He is going to advise them on how to help him and his agenda. To put it simply, he is trying to organize them.

To contrast this, try to imagine this scenario; it is 2004, and President Bush plans a webcast to speak directly to the children about the virtues of tax cuts or to defend the Iraq War. The left would be completely apoplectic over such an event, but here they see no foul.

Incidentally, the school in question in the opening paragraph was Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, NJ. They have a new principal now, but I decided to write to him anyway, and ask him the question of teacher firings next week. Here is the text of my email:

Dear Mr. Tucholski,

In light of the fact that a teacher from your school was fired for having a photograph of President Bush silently hanging on her wall in 2004, I was just curious as to how many teachers will be fired on September 8th for having President Obama beamed into the classroom for the purpose of indoctrinating the children.

Please reply at your earliest convenience.



Sincerely,

Daniel James Wood

I will certainly update this post in the event of a reply.

Sphere: Related Content

Swine Flu And The Police State

Rahm Emmanuel recently said - and I paraphrase - never let a crisis go to waste, indicating that bad news is good news for those who seek to capitalize for political gain. What he never mentioned, however, was the value of manufactured crises.

Not to suggest that the swine flu outbreak was the product of any nefarious action, but its magnitude has certainly been vastly inflated. One reason may be to accentuate the debate on universal health care, but the current machinations in various states point to a much more potentially dangerous scenario. One such state is Massachusetts.

According to Chelsea Schilling of WorldNetDaily, there is a "pandemic response bill" under way in the Massachusetts legislature that would give authorities broad and chilling powers in the event of a perceived health emergency. Passed by the Massachusetts state Senate on April 28, Pandemic Response Bill 2028 is awaiting approval in the House. If passed, all it would take for the state authorities to exert draconian control and a stunning cessation of constitutional liberty is a declaration by the governor that an emergency exists, and individual freedom would be lost.

Among the provisions of this bill are the state's ability to forcefully enter private dwellings, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, inoculate citizens against their wishes, and imprison those who refuse to comply. They will also have the authority to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons. According to Barbara Loe Fischer, president of the National Vaccine Information Center:

"Public health doctors have persuaded legislators to pass pandemic influenza legislation that will allow state officials to enter homes and businesses without the consent of occupants, to investigate and quarantine individuals without their consent, to require licensed health-care providers to give citizens vaccines and to ban the free assembly of citizens in the state."

This disturbing trend is not limited to Massachusetts, either. Other states pursuing the same measures are Florida, Iowa, North Carolina and Washington. All of this over a virus that has not yet claimed nearly as many lives as other influenza viruses do every year. Perhaps the virus was not manufactured, but there is little doubt that the accompanying hysteria has been.

Rahm Emmanuel is no doubt licking his chops over the potential presented here for complete control of the masses.

Sphere: Related Content

Look South For Signs: All-Out Assault On Capitalism

Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity...
-Alvin Lee, Ten Years After

There once was a time in America when success was both desired and envied simultaneously, but never was it denied that the means toward success were the very foundation of the nation. Hard work and the entrepreneurial spirit, combined with a fervent desire for victory, is what built this country into the monument to freedom that it is. For generations, our youth has been taught that playing to win is important, for it was an educational preparation for life in the working world. Healthy competition was always encouraged, and it always bore fruit.

Then came an unsavory period in our history when the successful began to genuinely exploit their employees. Thus the unions saw their genesis, something that I do acknowledge was necessary at the time but have long since denounced as the unions gained more and more power and influence and merely became usurpers of the tyranny of the successful bosses. Ironically, this was all made possible by a Democrat president presiding over a financial crisis and fomenting the socialistic tendencies at play today, claiming that only government oversight could cure all economic ills. Look at where it has lead us.

While ordinary American tenacity, coupled with brief spells of Conservative control of the executive branch, has valiantly fought against the tide of previous fiscal maladies and won, the collective sentiment of the people has been steered purposefully towards an ever increasing desire for that which will be their ultimate ruin; totalitarianism, packaged and sold as "compassion".

Part of the Communist Manifesto designates control of the educational system as key to shaping the mood of the nation. By simple manipulation of the curricula, it would be easy to mold the minds of future leaders into blithe acceptance of ideologies that would make their parents cringe. Predictably, parents did resist, only to be told that they were poorly educated in old ways, and subsequently acquiesced out of dazed confusion and a sense of being outdated. The wheel was greased...

Because the Trojan Horse was gaily wrapped in bright, festive paper bearing the American flag, people took their eyes off of it while fighting the decoy that remained the object of their ire. Overtly communist neighbors were scorned and children warned, steering clear of those neighboring properties designated as hostile by their parents, all the while the subversion continued unabated. Once the mind is won, the rest is easy.

So now we have a president who calmly tolerates the tongue-lashing of his country by a socialist leader of a Latin-American country (Daniel Ortega) and a lecture by the socialist leader of the host country (Hugo Chavez). We have elected members of the United States Congress openly embracing the policies of the likes of those two men, as well as heaping praise on the "leadership" of Fidel Castro, additionally lauding his health care provisions for his poverty-stricken island. One such Representative actually romanticized about Che Guevara. Also, our nation's official stance under this administration - for the first time in my memory - is to side with the socialist Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, who was ousted by his own Congress for subversion of his countries constitution.

The next step is drawing a huge, collective yawn from our media, even as ordinary citizens rail against it and are denigrated as heretics. Obama is following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez. Just as Chavez has nationalized a large portion of the Venezuelan industry, Obama is moving as quickly as possible to do the same here. Just as Chavez has waged war on media outlets not friendly to the regime, so Obama has sought to encourage tattletales to report citizens who disparage his regime even as he himself has decried the perceived "disinformation" being spread, just like Chavez has qualified his actions on the same, obtuse grounds.

Currently "employing" more czars than the Russian empire did in more than 400 years, this president has seen the finish line for capitalism and is racing for the tape. No one would heed the warning signs of his past associations during the campaign, and no one in the media today seems willing to point out the pasts of the plethora of unaccountable people now helping this Marxist in reshaping what was once known as the land of milk and honey.

Heartening is the sudden surge in conservative willingness for activism, but I fear that the tide may have come in too late for a peaceful reversal of the radical policy shift of our "leaders". When the likes of the Republican opposition candidate for president - who once heroically resisted the torturous tactics of his Viet Cong captors - suddenly succumbs to the whims of a would-be socialist tyrant, it is left to the angry population to seize the mantel of preservation.

For a short-range glimpse into our potential future, simply look South. All of the signs are there.

Sphere: Related Content