This video is seven and a half minutes long, but it will jar your senses when you consider the overall implications of what it means. This is by no means a message of hate - as I'm sure some will attempt to characterize it - but a simple message of our wish to remain free Americans and not slaves to Allah.
Special hat tip to SleeplessByTheSea for this one.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
This video is seven and a half minutes long, but it will jar your senses when you consider the overall implications of what it means. This is by no means a message of hate - as I'm sure some will attempt to characterize it - but a simple message of our wish to remain free Americans and not slaves to Allah.
Monday, April 27, 2009
In the grand scheme of things, many misperceptions abound regarding the understandings of various religions. Too many feel that their self-perceived - and therefore valid - declarations of expertise warrant a level of respect for their opinions that bears no such value in the real world. Our world is being shaped by the children we send off for "higher education", assuming that they will ultimately "learn the secrets" we have enjoyed for much of our lives. Fortunately, I can report with authority that not all of our kids succumb so easily to the temptations of ultimate ruination.
To be sure, there are many young people who will no doubt be one day castigated as heretics - just as their parents are today - and who will eventually resist the beckoning call of bondage in the guise of spiritual freedom, for reasons unimaginable to those sending out the Siren's Song, and will once again find the courage they thought they exhibited by questioning Christ.
I may be the most irreverent of advocates for God and Jesus that the world has ever known, but I do not absolutely make that claim. While the late Sam Kinison was a bona fide radio evangelist, I think I have him beat through sheer longevity and lifestyle choice, but I will not sully his comedic genius by doing a "I-lived-longer" dance. What I am trying to convey is the possibility to believe in a God without having to murder others during religious services.
That brings us to the comparisons so many avoid. No one wants to debate their own belief in God despite the fact that they are soaked in the wine of their faith. I am reticent to label such behavior as cowardice, but I must admit that I am better equipped than most much better Christians than I am to venture into the fray of theological debate, albeit from the perspective of heathen rather than scholar. And, lest I risk practicing the very hypocrisy I mentioned in the opening paragraph, it must be mentioned that I was raised as a Catholic and still remember many lessons. By that I mean that while I know God well - and love him immensely - I haven't spoken to him for a very long time, unless simple prayer could be construed as otherwise.
All of these things pale in comparison to the simple truth that all religions and their adherents are basically the same. All, that is, save for one. Most faiths have learned to accept and benefit from others in the spirit of the modern age of communications, and though there are often moments of cultural shock, most people learn to question, accept and finally move beyond.
I had one fellow employee, a Hindu, who was distressed when I smashed a hornet up against the window with a magazine. He was aghast at my trivialization of life, even in the form of a potentially harmful insect. After a bit of introspection, I understood his lugubrious complaint, but I got over it rather quickly and he did the same, not once considering that it might be the proper time to wage a holy jihad (or whatever it is that Hindus might wage) in retaliation for the death of the wasp.
Islam is the last remnant of religious intolerance, or more appropriately, "zero tolerance". A simple infraction such as the death of a bug could ignite carnage in the realm of Islam, and no amount of camaraderie or well wishes would be sufficient to quell the resulting mayhem. I simply cannot be dissuaded from my belief that Islam thrives on conflict and violence, and that the absence of either would render it meaningless...provided, of course, that Islam is not the last standing power.
Then all bets are off.
What a year 2009 is turning out to be. The economy is a permanent fixture on the nightly news, car companies are ceasing production on models many of us grew up with, and the banks keep raising interest rates. And through it all, our new president is vowing to spend a couple hundred billion here and a few trillion there... it never worked this way with my personal finances and I have to wonder why it will work now.
The latest spending binge coming down the pike from the White House is another $420 billion for research and development in the scientific community. Claiming that America has fallen behind the rest of the world in science - and that that is unacceptable - Obama says we must spend 3% of our gross domestic product on science in order to once again "lead" in that field. This, of course, is a direct response to the threat of swine flu emanating from Mexico, which is odd because while the administration refuses to close the border or screen flight arrivals from Mexico, the president claims that we are well equipped to deal with the threat. So where did we fall behind, Sir?
Anyone who questions the scientific superiority of the United States should once again ask why it is the most coveted place on the planet to live. Why are the seriously ill flown into America for life-saving procedures? Why do people risk almost certain death either from drowning or shark attack to reach our shores? Having experienced neither, I still believe that I would choose a life of oppression over that of being a meal for a nasty fish, but the lure of American life causes many to consciously make that choice in direct contrast to what I would choose. Then again, they are more familiar with a life of oppression than I do or would ever care to know.
Just yesterday my wife asked, "What are you going to do today?" I responded that I was going to Home depot to get some things for the yard. She told me to wait until next weekend. Our auto insurance premiums are due this week and she didn't want to be caught short. So, I found a few bags of garden mulch I had left over from last year in the shed, and while my wife weeded, I placed nice, new black mulch around the blooming plants.
Perhaps Michelle Obama should grab the president by the ear and drag him out to the garden she's been tending on the White House grounds. It might be our only hope to get him to stop spending, and it would also free those children up to go and play.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
So-called stewards of the environment would have us believe that gluttonous greed and capitalism will be the undoing of planet Earth, and that we must immediately put a leash on corporate big-wigs who are the culprits of it all. Spinmeisters of every stripe - including elected politicians - have unleashed a multi-front war on corporate America and have been quite successful at creating villains that unwitting Americans have giddily set upon in their manufactured outrage.
Never mind that trading carbon offsets will accomplish little more than an exchange of cash in the grand scheme of the welfare of the planetary climate, it is still a bill of goods being thrust upon every American as beneficial, and they're buying it like it's on sale. What many of them don't realize is that the benefit is going to a very few who have built a lucrative market to which they are herding us like so many beleaguered bovines.
Two of the people who are setting themselves up to make king's fortunes are Al Gore and Maurice Strong. Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange (hmm, Chicago...), which has been described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.” Gore is both the chairman and a founding partner in Generation Investment Management LLP, which is a firm that holds considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms currently in existence, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.
The collaboration between the two dates back to, appropriately, Earth Day in 1995, when Gore went to give a speech at Molten Metal Technology Inc. in Fall River, Massachusetts. The company claimed to have devised a process for recycling metals from waste. It was also run by Maurice Strong and Peter Knight, Gore’s former top Senate aide and the companies lobbyist. Gore had gone there to sing the praises of Molten Metal as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and be beneficial to investors at the same time. Sound familiar?
The company received $25 million in R&D from the Department of Energy and a subsequent $8 million from federal taxpayer coffers. After Gore's endorsement, the firm's stock on Wall Street went to $35 per share. A short time later, the DOE stopped funding the companies projects due to a lack of commercial viability, and between March and October of 1996, Strong and six other officers in the company sold off $15.3 million in personal shares. On Sunday, October 20th of that year, the company issued a press release stating that DOE funding would all but end, and notified brokers via conference call. The next day when the market opened, the stock plunged 49% to $5 per share.
It was learned in the subsequent lawsuit by angry shareholders that Strong had done something similar earlier with a Swiss company called AZL Resources, artificially driving up the stock prices before bailing out with a fortune.
It gets better. On March 25th, 2009, Fox News Ed Barnes wrote an article titled, Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress , in which he wrote, in part:
"While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president."In 2000 and 2001, Barack Obama served on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, the above mentioned charity, which gave over $1 million in two separate grants that, according to Barnes, "were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange".
So, while corporate CEO's are being raked over the coals (no pun intended) for their "excessive greed", we have the triad of Gore, Strong and Obama preparing to tax the living daylights out of us through the punitive cap and trade scheme and enrich themselves at the same time. But when the Earth begins to cool, so will the fervor over CO2, and you can bet your last tank of gas that these three will have long sold off their stakes before the shareholders ever knew what hit them. Meanwhile the poor grunts - the rest of us - will have been driven to poverty.
Hat Tips to:
Judi McLeod of Canana Free Press
Ed Barnes of Fox News Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 24, 2009
Actually there was Gore at the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment hearings today on Capitol Hill, but conspicuously absent was any evidence of guts or intestinal fortitude exhibited by congressional democrats. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, apparently had invited Lord Christopher Monckton to appear jointly with former vice president Al Gore at the hearings. The majority party balked when they learned of Monckton's intended participation in the hearings.
Monckton, a former science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has been a vocal critic of the claims of Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists who continue to hawk the insane notion that Man is destroying the planet. He has challenged Gore to open debates and has been refused at every turn with the dismissive "the science is settled" argument and bogus claims of an imaginary "consensus" among the scientific community, which we have learned recently has begun to crumble like a house of cards in a stiff, CO2-induced breeze.
Earlier this week, Republican committee staff were informed by House democrats that they would be offering an "unnamed celebrity" as their star witness. According to ClimateDepot.com:
The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.An update on the website states that democrats on the committee said "absolutely not" in regard to having Monckton appear alongside Gore.
On March 19th, 2007, Monckton issued a challenge to Al Gore to debate before a world-wide television audience. As part of that challenge, in a letter sent to the former vice president, Monckton said:
"A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."He also called on Gore to:
"step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, and then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge".And still Gore, comfy in his IPCC-bestowed Nobel Prize, ducked Monckton and would not debate on the basis that his award was all the validation he needed to claim victory. The world populace be damned; Oslo and the UN had spoken.
Elected congressional democrats agreed and shut Monckton out of the conference today, waiting until he had de-planed to break the news to him. The alleged party of freedom of speech and liberty has determined autonomously that the people need hear no more than the rantings of a lunatic who is also part of their cloistered club.
As ironic as that descriptive term may be, irony seems to define the democrat party. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The title - particularly coming from me - will probably be misunderstood to mean that the Conservative Revolution has begun by way of the Tea Parties, but sadly, that is not what I mean. No, I'm referring to the radical alteration of what was formerly the greatest nation the world has ever seen at the hands of a world-class manipulator who has learned well from masters past the fine art of mental judo. Judo is the martial art that utilizes an opponents own kinetic energy against him and the Obama movement, employing the same technique, has used the misguided demands of the alleged downtrodden and their champions to simply step aside and propel their progress through their own momentum.
This has been made possible also by the brilliant use of what I consider the new camouflage. The new camouflage is not designed to enable its wearer to blend into his surroundings, thereby rendering him somewhat invisible. The new camouflage is the opposite of the old, for it is bright red and very loud. The premise is that those about to be attacked would not even consider such a clad person to be a threat simply because they're too obvious.
That is exactly what happened to so many people who voted for Obama, people who probably would not have if they had heeded the warnings from the few of us who tried, and who are no doubt regretting their votes today. The accompanying photograph and the many like it should have been more than enough to stop this neophyte's campaign dead in its tracks, but that didn't happen. One reason could be that too many people are either too young to know about the awful images conjured by the Soviet Revolution or not quite engaged enough to have bothered to learn about that time.
The same excuse may be used for the absence of outrage of so many who saw no cause for alarm over Obama's relationship with William Ayers, or his apparent subscription to the ideas of Saul Alinsky. I guess no one who voted for him believed his own confessions on the campaign trail of his plans to redistribute the wealth, and there were many such confessions both overt and through slips of the tongue. It must also be assumed that Obama's own promises to have talks with leaders who routinely and shamelessly call for America's demise and chant "death to America" were things that were of little concern to his voters.
What truly confounds me today, however, is that there is still this Matrix-like disconnect with far too many Americans despite the fact that Obama, having donned the bright red camouflage, is now also employing a very loud megaphone to declare his intentions to shred the very fabric of the nation. While many on the left complained bitterly about the spending of the previous administration, quite a few on the right joined them, albeit with the qualifier of war spending. But now that this president has basically rounded up every cent in the nation and burned it on the South Lawn, there is not a whimper from the left. How can that be?
The latest signals of the Obama Slash And Burn Doctrine are his latest foreign country tours reminiscent of Connie Francis' I'm Sorry, and the publication of the CIA interrogation memos. It's bad enough that the memos were publicized but, as former vice president Dick Cheney correctly pointed out, the administration was selective in the passages released, neglecting the parts that demonstrated the success of "harsh interrogation practices" having stopped an attack in Los Angeles intended to rival that of September 11th, 2001.
It is mind-boggling to me how any thinking person could possibly construe the actions of this president - all in less than 100 days - as somehow constructive for the nation, unless "constructive" is interpreted as removing every vestige of majesty from the memories of our citizenry and those of the world we have bettered by our existence.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
While it is clear that more people around the world than Americans wanted Obama to win the election, he is still the President of the United States, not the President of the World. Try telling that to him, though, as he seems to concentrate more on the planet rather than the country he was sworn to protect and govern. Someone should also tell him - and quickly - that in the middle of this economic slump it is not wise to spend like a recently-divorced ex-wife of Donald Trump.
From the $787 billion so-called "stimulus" bill, to the $3 trillion budget, Obama now wants to give $100 billion to the International Monetary Fund's program with the appropriate acronym, NAB (New Arrangements to Borrow). The reason for this massive amount of money, which we don't have to give? To help "emerging" nations economies. Perhaps the president should focus his energy on America's problems first since that was he was elected to do.
Oh, he is calling for congress to trim a whopping $100 million (yes, with an "m") from the budget, as if that will have any more effect than a flea trying to take down an elephant. One might get the idea that he was more aware of the "Tea Parties" than he originally let on, but please, $100 million?
I'm reminded of a television commercial in which some dam inspectors spot a leak and plug the hole with a piece of chewing gum. The difference is that Obama's remedy is to use a hammer and chisel.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Or The Continuation Of Snake Oil Sales
Despite the fact that it was republicans who were historically responsible for the emancipation of colonial slaves in America, the same party is still regarded as the oppressors of Blacks to this day. Anyone who has been even peripherally aware of the actual progress made regarding race relations in this country should be either outraged or, at the least, confounded by the continuing claims of leftists who earn their bacon on the backs of those whom they claim to champion. Imagine someone with their heel planted firmly on the throat of a downed victim shrilly calling for immediate aid. Of course, that victim must be unconscious, as must be the massive electorate of victims who continue to endorse their own oppressors.
The chains commonly associated with the traditional meaning of slavery have not been banished but have merely been replaced by what many today would consider jewelry; trinkets that have bestowed so-called success-story breakouts such as rap "artists" with a false sense of empowerment while forcing many of them outside the laws, both legally and societally. While amassing enviable fortunes, these renegades have made no progress at all. They are still angry while having the wealth to enjoy a lofty perch from which to vent. Is that to be considered progress?
Democrats have held the claim on not only the reins of power for most of the twentieth century but also the hearts and minds of the downtrodden. It is strange then, that we are still having this debate after all this time, particularly in light of their resurgence in 2006 and the election of a Black democrat to the highest office in the land. The "struggle" should have culminated in a stunning declaration of victory last November. Nope, there is still no justice and no peace.
At what point will these seekers of validation and restitution recognize that they have been duped by politicians who only crave the continuance of their own power? When will cognizance of the heel on the throat seep into their consciousness? And for the love of God, when will they realize that slavery is not necessarily the beatings and bondage so colloquially associated with the romantic version we have all come to know, but rather the clandestine and more palatable version currently being thrust upon us?
Obama still insists that his capitulatory diplomatic style is not detrimental to the United States, refusing to understand that it broadcasts a message of weakness to foreign foes. Last month I wrote about his willingness to forgive the despot Castro for his prison-camp country, choosing to ignore the half-century old policy of shunning for that of detente. Since then we have witnessed the president of the United States bowing to the Saudi King despite what Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs may say. (Yes Charles, it was a bow.)
Also recently concluded was Obama's Latin American leg of his Forgive Us Our Trespasses World Tour in which he was seen yukking it up with Hugo Chavez; in between mea culpas, of course. Chavez - to hear Obama tell it - was "gracious enough" to offer the well-read president a book. The book was titled Open Veins of Latin America, circa 1971 by Eduardo Galeano, a running complaint of American and British "imperialism" in Latin America. Perhaps Chavez endeavored to further Obama's education, since only a month ago he dismissed Obama as an "ignoramus."
I did not see any mention of the president offering a gift to Chavez, but I would hope that he reciprocated with a book titled something like, Che Guevara Was a Murderous, Communist Scumbag. I'm sure Hugo Chavez would have beamed at such an offering as did Obama.
Perhaps more disturbing than Obama's obsequiousness is his detached-from-reality belief that his electoral win was somehow a validation of his policies thus far. He says that the election was a referendum of sorts on the argument that U.S. solicitude toward foreign leaders could be seen as "weakness." The election was a referendum on nothing more than a multitude of misguided Americans so desperately wanting their first Black president that they shrugged off all reason for insane exuberance. Many of them now - not all, to be certain - are questioning their own judgement. The polls have been falling in only his first few months as president. While his approval rating has dipped by less than ten points, those who disapprove have nearly tripled.
It should be cause for concern among all Americans when our enemies hold our president in higher esteem than do his own constituents. Even more so when that president, through his own contrite demeanor, is directly responsible for that esteem. Bill Clinton made decisions based on polling data, sure, but at least he governed based on how many Americans he could get to "like him".
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tax and spend has long been the art of the liberal democrat, seizing money from successful producers to provide for the "less fortunate" through massive entitlement programs. Under the guise of compassion, democrats are increasingly creating a society that cannot function without their benevolence, though the benevolence is borne not by them but by those who have not yet succumbed to the notion of complete dependence. And the evidence of the destructive results were on full display in the relative microcosm of New Orleans in 2005.
Apparently, President Obama and the democrat-controlled congress are not satisfied with the pace of submission as they have rapidly accelerated the confiscatory practices of taxation and are spending like newly endowed lottery winners. To make matters much worse, Obama is planning to severely micromanage the economic recovery, using a braking system - or is that breaking? - to take 'er nice and slow.
Politico.com is reporting that Obama is preparing to "regulate new bubbles", meaning that if the economy starts to look too good, he's going to tax the daylights out of it. From the article:
“We know that an economy built on reckless speculation, inflated home prices, and maxed-out credit cards does not create lasting wealth. It creates the illusion of prosperity, and it’s endangered us all,” Obama said recently.I have to give the left credit for one thing; they sure know how to make a pile of dung sound delicious.
But what Obama rarely says about ending the “cycle of bubble and bust” is this: he’s prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn’t occur.
What this means to me, however, is that he is planning to treat the economy in true socialist fashion, that being that success is patently unfair and the only method of fairness is an equal level of misery. Since the busts are so painful, the joy of prosperity must be tempered, as well. To be fair, our society has become all too accepting of such standards, preferring the monotony of a Zoloft existence to the roller-coaster ride of emotion.
Be prepared for Obama's new "tax and end" policies to provide an endless stream of soothing, gray days. If the sun should try to peek out and ruin the general malaise, he'll tax that, too. Happiness will not be tolerated any longer. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 17, 2009
One of the tenets of Christianity is the practice of turning the other cheek when struck by thine enemy. Often taken literally - and rightly so - it is symbolic of the peaceful resolution of conflict, but its interpretation often ends with the offering of the cheek, leaving much to speculation. Some believe it is a sign of unwillingness to combat evil, preferring instead to allow evil its path unabated with God's own wrath as just reward. I have a different take on the meaning. We'll get to that in a bit.
First, I find it incredibly ironic that those who are so quick to capitulate to evil intent are also the variety who do not subscribe much to Scriptures, fighting every step of the way to rid society of every mention of God and religion. They will march, they will shout, and they will even clash with law enforcement when police attempt to maintain order in the midst of mayhem caused by a concerted demand to cease the violence (read, war). So righteous are these liberal protesters in their insistence on peace that they will fight their own brethren to achieve it, never stopping to consider that their true enemies patiently await the outcome so they can strike us all. Nor do they ever seem to question the violence employed on their behalf in the hopes of stopping...violence.
Folklore and more modern media are rife with examples of righteous Christian vengeance and rage, a point that has been used by the left for the accusation of hypocrisy when violence is used. There was a movie about a priest in a gang-controlled neighborhood who did everything he could to use reason and God's love to put a halt to the brutal acts perpetrated by the gang, reaching out to the gang members, offering the other cheek, only to be rebuked time and time again. The movie climaxed in a scene in which the priest rolled up his sleeves and beat the gang leader like a drum. Problem solved, the gang fled and the priest offered an Act of Contrition.
Anyone who is old enough to remember the old western television show Gunsmoke is no doubt familiar with the concept of limited appeasement. In the show, Marshall Matt Dillon always tried to offer the weekly outlaws a way out with honor, usually involving leaving town alive. Most times, he wound up in a shootout with one of the bad guys, resulting in the regrettable death of said bad guy and a look of sad remorse on Dillon's face.
Those are but two examples of offering the other cheek in hypothetical fashion, rather than the literal interpretation. It is for this reason that I believe that presenting the other cheek is a final attempt at offering redemption for the offender while not making it expressly clear that not accepting the overture will result in a serious beating. Perhaps we should make that point clearer to our enemies, though we still have the violence-prone left demanding nothing short of complete acquiescence.
I often wonder how a group like Not In Our Name or Code Pink would react to Islamofascists in the moments before their brutal deaths. Would they protest physically like they do with the United States Marine Corps? Would they smash camels as though they were police cruisers? Would they hang Muhammed in effigy as they have George W. Bush?
Or in a truly pacifist -while not Christian, Someone forbid - fashion, would they offer the other side of their necks when the blade could not quite get through the spine?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Why didn't we think of this much sooner?
Oh my, how the left of every stripe has gone utterly apoplectic over the "Tea Parties". It is quite a spectacle to behold as they writhe and squirm and whine over the dastardly conservatives stealing their bread-winning strategies. Why, how dare we exercise our rights as citizens to protest, even though we build the roads and fund the weak? What further forms of gall could we possibly exhibit, continuing to donate to charities even without the tax deductions? That would be like Holy water on a vampire's skin. The horrors.
Last night and today has been a time for not only the mainstream media and their congressional cohorts to reveal themselves as the spoiled children they have tried mightily to conceal, but also a time to expose their concerted agenda to the rest of society. There is a deliciously colloquial term for such a happening: busted.
What has been most evident in the past twenty four hours is a sense of embarrassed discovery amongst the liberal elites, something akin to being caught in a closet teabagg...well, we don't need to stoop to that level now, do we? I think I will leave such innuendo to the Anderson Cooper's of the world. The same Anderson Cooper who declared on national television that, "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging". Far be it from me to challenge such an authority on that subject.
What has really struck me, however, is the level of derision and vitriol being hurled by elected members of congress in the matter of the Tea Parties. Nancy Pelosi has referred to the demonstrations as "astroturf", an obvious dismissal of the movement's claims of being of the "grass roots" variety. Pelosi insists that the events were orchestrated by "corporations and the rich", as though that is condemnation enough. To be sure, in her circles it would be; her ilk believes that the rich - other than themselves - are inherently evil.
Never mentioned in their glowing praise of virtually every left wing protest is the fact that those events have been funded in large part - and organized to a slightly lesser degree - by people like George Soros and outfits like MoveOn.org and Code Pink. Nor does the covering media ever mention some nefarious agenda when anti-war protesters block recruiting centers. The focus in those situations is usually on the treatment of the protesters at the hands of police who try to allow a legal operation to continue unfettered by misguided ideologues.
It gets better, though. Not to be outdone by Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) has ratcheted up the rhetoric dramatically, labeling the activities of the Tea Party demonstrators as "despicable and shameful."
"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she said. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.” Forgive me, but I do remember a time, in a capitalist America, when such statements would have been considered so far outside the mainstream that they would have been cause for legal scrutiny. How times have changed.
The good news is that it appears the times are a-changin' again. Conservatives have raised heads and eyebrows alike in the last day and, more importantly, have made a connection that has shaken the liberal establishment to its core. We have drunk their milkshakes, stolen their cookies, and kicked their dogs. We have awakened. Sphere: Related Content
Yesterday was Tax Day, April 15th, a day for which I have never heard one person express gratitude upon its arrival, with the exception of the recipients of those funds. No one likes to pay taxes and if they say they do, they're lying plain and simple. So it is quite ironic that people - including those in the media - were busily denigrating the Tea Party protesters yesterday, calling them "un-American" and somehow un-patriotic because they dared to express their displeasure with the runaway taxing and spending by the people they elect to serve.
It's also rather odd that media-types would show the level of disdain and derision evident in coverage of the Tea Parties since they are usually cheerleaders of those who take to the streets and voice their anger at injustice. Yet, they will say, "what media bias"?
Chris Matthews showed his typical liberal stripe by behaving like a pimply-faced, prepubescent teenager who had just learned a dirty word, giggling as he referred to the protesters as "teabaggers", a reference to an act that, suffice it to say, is one of former President Clinton's favorites. Other media outlets were not as juvenile in their coverage, but still insisted on attempting to disqualify the nationwide protests by continually dismissing their origins, refusing to accept the notion that it was a grass roots effort.
Perhaps it is a fear that has been born in the established liberal domain, seeing conservatives - who have historically not done too poorly despite barely fighting - suddenly beginning to stir. I think of someone poking a big, sleeping dog with a stick until the dog opens one eye, growling. I just hope that the dog wakes up fully and rises to his feet to chase the stick-wielder off of the porch.
Yesterday was a good start. I hope it can continue.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The All American Tea Party
By now, most every American that is even a little bit interested in the politics that affect their everyday lives, have heard about the tea parties that will be taking place across the nation at noon today.
These parties are not against anything, nearly as much as they are for standing up for the country we know and love….the country built on a constitution, well thought out by our founders…A constitution written to protect our rights as citizens of the freest nation on earth…A constitution that jetted us to be the most envied nation on earth, even though it is one of the youngest. A constitution that has geared us in the right direction for over 200 years…A constitution that guaranteed us the right to have these tea parties!
While some party participants will come with posters and signs, some will wave flags, some will speak, and some will watch. But, they will all have one common thread. They will all be showing their patriotism. To love a country, and see it going the wrong direction, and not participate, is as much a waste of your rights, as it is to waste your vote, not bothering to go to the polls on election day.
We have had a lot thrown at us in the last 2 months. For the first time in our history, our leadership wants to control many facets of our enterprise system, which is suppose to be free, in a free nation. There is nowhere in our constitution that calls for government intervention. We’ve also had our rights to bear arms threatened. We’ve had our leadership try to befriend countries that are known to arm and fund terrorists. They intend to raise our taxes, to spend the way they choose, and ignore all calls to cut government spending. They have past a budget that will break our backs, along with our children’s backs. They are intentionally trying to make us weak. They intend to socialize our medicine. We are now hearing rumblings that if you don’t agree with the administration and their policies, you should be watched. That word just came out through Home land security. Those in the media that speak out against the administration’s actions have be ridiculed. They are trying to quash our freedoms, one by one.
If ever you had reason to stand up for your country, today is the day to show your strength. We still have a say so. We can still pull the numbers together, the legal way….without funding groups like Acorn to do our work. We need to show the country today, that we love our country, more than we love their brand of change.
If you can get to a tea party today, do so! Take your flag! If you cannot get to one, participate, anyway. Raise your flag at home! Put a poster on your car! Honk your horn 3 times at noon. Do something to show you still have some patriotism running through your veins!
And at the end of the day….you can say, I helped….in a peaceful way!
I helped America get back on the right track.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
For the past fifty years liberal protesters have been busily wreaking havoc in all parts of the nation. While the Department of Homeland Security has not been around for most of those fifty years, the fact still remains that government in any form has not had an orchestrated effort to label and watch them. In fact, government has advocated for them, insisting that they were merely exercising their rights as Americans.
To be certain, individual members of congress over the years have warned of leftist subversive behavior and the various intelligence agencies have had specific targets which they have watched, but liberals have not been subject as a group to any watch lists or undue surveillance. And the ones who were targeted for investigation were clashing with the military and law enforcement entities, often violently, which is a clear indication of being anti-establishment. Today, quite a few who were actual threats to national security now enjoy stations in society that many would envy.
William Ayers of the Weather Underground declared war, on the radio, against the United States. He now teaches at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His wife, Bernadine Dohrn, and co-conspirator in the Weatherman attacks teaches also, as do several other members of the group. His past was re-introduced to young Americans during the presidential campaign of Obama but it had little effect on either the electorate or DHS. The man who would be President of the United States was friendly with a domestic terrorist, and he won. Stunning.
The same goes for many of Obama's associations, such as his pastor and mentor, Reverend Wright, who intimated shortly after the September 11th attacks that America deserved what she got that fateful day by saying that it was "America's chickens coming homing to roost". Today, he is doing just fine.
There is also the matter of Code Pink anti-war protesters physically blocking a legal military recruiting center in Berkeley, California during war time. Have any of them been scrutinized by the Department of Homeland Security? The answer is no. So who is now considered a threat to America? The "right wing", that's who.
According to the nine page report sent out to law enforcement agencies around the nation, the DHS is keeping a wary eye on those who dare to support the tenth amendment to the constitution, which specifically limits the power of the federal government, enumerating the individual states with such. Part of the report defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. So if you support the constitution, you're a problem.
Some other signs that you may be in trouble include insisting that the federal government, as well as state and local governments, enforce our immigration laws. If you oppose the murder of babies through abortion, DHS wants to keep a close eye on you, as well.
Some on the web are pointing to a 2001 report from the U.S Energy Department entitled “Left-Wing Extremism: The Current Threat”, as a counter to the current activities of the DHS. I encourage you to read the PDF here. It describes the Energy Departments reasons for the report, and you'll see that the definition contained therein of "left wing extremism" involves activities designed to harm America - such as espionage for hostile countries, murders and sabotage - rather than the right wing desire to preserve America.
How we have ended up on the wrong end of the barrel is obvious; the enemy has seized control through the ballot box. That has a familiar ring to it. So if anyone speaks to Janet Napolitano, tell her where she can find me.
I feel rather silly about my recent angst over the possibility of the government reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", a bill that would essentially be the death knell for talk radio. The reason for my embarrassment is not that I was wrong about that possibility; it's because, in the grand scheme of things, the Fairness Doctrine is small potatoes. My main concern now is staying out of the Guantanamo Bay prison.
The Washington Times is reporting today that the Department of Homeland Security has sent out a report to law enforcement agencies around the nation under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." It warns that the economic recession and the election of the first black man to president could turn right-wingers into violent threats to America.
According to the report, rightwing extremism goes beyond simple racism exhibited by groups or individuals. As Jeff Foxworthy would say, "if you reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority...you might be a terrorist". If you're opposed to abortion or illegal immigration, you could also wind up on a DHS watch list.
The report also says that the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."
There are over twelve million people running around this country who broke the law to get here, and despite knowing who and where many of them are, the government does nothing to send them packing. Homeland Security can do nothing to seal the borders, where illegal aliens cross, and where al-Qaeda could also be crossing. Yet, they worry about conservatives disagreeing with their insane policies. Perhaps the federal government can put those shiny new "volunteers" to work cleaning up their local towns and ridding them of rightwing naysayers.
Oops. I hope that last paragraph doesn't make me a target. Then again, I love warm weather, and Guantanamo is beautiful in that regard. The best thing is that I won't have to share the prison with radical jihadists. They will be free in Amerika, perhaps living in my vacant home once they issue my orange jumpsuit.
Monday, April 13, 2009
In honor of the United States Navy, who took out three Somali pirates with three simultaneous sniper head-shots on rolling seas, at night, and saved Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk-Alabama.
While the video is from a video game, I thought it very appropriate.
Nice Shot Man, indeed. Enjoy...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Or, Do They Sometimes Grow Back?
In what I sincerely hope will not be the last apology or retraction required of me, I must at this point admit that I may have jumped the gun on my assessment of the president's intestinal fortitude in this case. At around one o'clock EDT this afternoon, the U.S. Navy took advantage of Captain Richard Phillips' second escape attempt - when he again leapt overboard - and killed three of the four Somali pirates holding him hostage, injuring and subsequently capturing the fourth. Pleasantly surprised, am I, to learn that President Obama twice approved of "appropriate force" in rescue attempts. Well done, Sir. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Americans, after having made their disdain for taxation plain during the Boston Tea Party, have come to terms with the overall necessity for the levies imposed by governments on all levels. We are all aware that the lifestyles we lead must be administered and that our taxes make that possible. We take for granted, therefore, that when we have the occasional fender-bender the police or fire departments will be there to pull us from a wrecked vehicle or to provide transport to a hospital if need be. It is the societal structure for which we pay taxes, and we all understand that relationship.
Likewise, we simply expect the streets to be illuminated and the trash collected. That expectation is not selfish by any stretch of the imagination simply because, as consumers, we pay for it. We have the right to expect basic services for which we pay, often exorbitantly as it is.
Now, however, cities across the country are turning to a fee-based system. Unable to control the spending of budgets bestowed upon them by virtue of the tax paying citizenry, and rather than raise taxes even more - which would cause a revolt - they are going to start charging individuals for services for which they have already payed! You want the street lights on? Send a check to city hall. Need emergency assistance? The invoice will be in the mail. How long before tuition is required at public schools?
MSNBC has posted a New York Times article titled, Cities, states turn to fees to fill budget gaps. The title says it all, but the first paragraph does even better:
After her sport utility vehicle sideswiped a van in early February, Shirley Kimel was amazed at how quickly a handful of police officers and firefighters in Winter Haven, Fla., showed up. But a real shock came a week later, when a letter arrived from the city billing her $316 for the cost of responding to the accident.Perhaps Big Brother can install special, coin-operated meters inside every citizen's doorway. In order to venture out into the big, bad world, it will cost you so many coins to do so. Or try to imagine spending a few hundred dollars at the grocery store and then being informed that there is a fifty dollar fee for the removal of the goods from the premises.
There are some who have already begun the scoffing at the planned Tea Parties around the country. Let's see them laugh when they get the bill for police protection of their counter-protests. Sphere: Related Content
Public school educators are presumably well educated people yet, when it comes to common sense, there is little evidence of the brilliance they are alleged to possess. Rather than swiftly and decisively punishing kids who are truly problematic when caught breaking the rules, schools have become bastions of blanket prohibition on activities that were once considered innocuous.
Last month, a mother in Fairfax County, VA received an urgent call from her daughter's high school informing her that her daughter was seen "popping a pill". As it turned out, it was the girl's birth control pill, prescribed by her doctor, but since the school has a zero tolerance policy regarding virtually any form of drug, the girl was suspended for two weeks.
Among other ridiculous restrictions in county schools; students are permitted to carry cough drops on campus but are prohibited from sharing them. In Maryland, a 2006 state law was needed to overturn a requirement that students needed a doctor's note to use sunscreen at school. And the Supreme Court is currently considering the case of a 13-year-old Arizona student who was actually strip-searched by an administrator for suspicion of carrying ibuprofen.
When it comes to the laws of the nation, however, schools look the other way. Our public school system is clogged with the children of illegal aliens. Why is there no zero tolerance policy for that transgression? According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform:
The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states $7.4 billion annually—enough to buy a computer for every junior high student nationwide. Proponents of schooling illegal children use the argument that refusing them an education will only increase crime levels by turning out uneducated illegal adults. That is almost as bad as the theory of not pursuing criminals because the chase might get someone injured.
It is time to start sending illegal aliens packing. The argument is that it's impossible to round them all up and deport them, which is true to a degree. We can't get them all in one raid, but the workplace raids that were so successful last year are evident by the loud protestations from illegal advocates. In any instance where someone is discovered to be here in violation of United States Immigration Laws, that person and his family should be detained and deported.
You don't pull all the weeds in your garden at once. Sometimes it takes all day.
So you say you don't have a green thumb? Can't quite get those tulips to grow no matter how many times you try or how much you spend? Don't worry, soon you'll be able to blame it on the government and sue for thousands of dollars.
Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts have added a provision to a climate change bill they co-authored which would enable plaintiffs who claim to be victims of global warming to sue the federal government or businesses for failure to act on global warming.
According to the Washington Times:
Plaintiffs could seek up to $75,000 in damages a year from the government, with $1.5 million being the maximum total payout.A single homeowner could make a living off of annual litigation, which sounds like a new form of legal welfare. The danger, however, lies in the prospect of an avalanche of lawsuits clogging up the federal government, and from what we've seen in the last decade or so, this litigious-happy society is more than capable of doing just that.
As long as we're on the avalanche motif, there is also the snowball effect this would most likely have. What is to stop self-perceived "victims" from suing their neighbors for using their gas lawnmower of propane barbecue? What if some green lunatic takes umbrage to your idling car on a cold morning? Such an ambiguous piece of legislation could have a - pardon the pun - chilling effect on society.
Then there is the logistical problem of someone from Duluth attempting to sue Beijing for their ecological transgressions. Try collecting damages from Mumbai or Bangladesh, or have your Muslim attorney serve papers to Islamabad. Where will it end?
Equally disturbing is the fact that Waxman is trying to get another rush job on this bill. Again, from the Times:
The Waxman-Markey blueprint, including the lawsuit provision, has just been released, and the Senate is drafting its own energy bill. But Mr. Waxman has set an accelerated schedule for passing the bill through his committee by Memorial Day and President Obama lists an energy overhaul bill as one of his top priorities.As with other bits of nastiness emanating from Congress, everything they want to inflict on we the people is being fast-tracked through both houses. We must ask ourselves - and our congress people - what is the motivation for such expediency. Why is it so urgent to give people the ability to sue over imaginary malfeasance?
I still maintain that the inmates are running the asylum. See you in court... Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 10, 2009
When I combined the two words in the title I was immediately struck by the image of an American Indian Territory. Would that the actual meaning had such a noble characteristic, for even as we battled and defeated the enemy of that time, there can be no argument that it was a foe worthy of respect simply for their fierce bravery and honor. They were strong and proud but eventually no match for our ingenuity. I wonder how many of them are sitting around tables today asking the incredulous question, "We lost to these people?"
Unfortunately, the title has nothing to do with proud heritage or valiant battles. It has everything to do with a great nation dropping her proverbial trousers. Barack Obama's recently-concluded Forgive Us Our Trespasses World Tour was an exercise in weakness and contrition the likes of which we haven't seen since the late '70's when Jimmy Carter was president. Many have already made the comparison between Carter and Obama as being carbon copies but I maintain that nothing could be further from the truth. Obama has taken vacillation and capitulation to new heights.
With this current administration we are seeing that there is no threat or no stand too big or small from which to turn tail and run. The president, rather than deal with the lawless who have snuck into this country in violation of its rules, is seeking to reward them with a complimentary room at the inn. A missile launch from North Korea, despite stern warnings from the International Community? No comment. What about Iran bragging about its nuclear ambitions and accomplishments? Answer: "We'll sit down and discuss this".
Now we have a United States flagged ship attacked by Somali national pirates, the first such incident in over two centuries. The captain of that ship is being held hostage on a 28-foot lifeboat, engaged in a standoff with the United States Navy who have been rendered bystanders via an order to observe from the Commander in Chief. While we have the gunnery to render these brazen terrorists chum for the denizens of the sea, the administration has opted for FBI hostage negotiators to try to reason with the thugs holding the captain.
All the while, a certain U.S. Senator has vowed to hold "hearings" regarding the pirates, perhaps in an attempt to instill a fear in them sufficient to end this standoff. In the mean time, the world looks at us, finger-pointing and giggling over what we have become, and despots and pirates demonstrate virtually no hesitation in thumbing their noses at us.
Once upon a time, America was a nation to be feared and respected, but that time seems to have passed so long ago that kids with switchblades feel completely comfortable storming the bastions of democracy with no fear of reprisal. In their minds failure would only require the fees necessary for a good defense attorney. Small price to pay for a lucrative life of crime.
Who's afraid of the big, bad (toothless)sheepdog?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
This whole business of global warming - climate change for you new-agers - is quite confounding. No amount of evidence is sufficient to deter the believers from their destructive course but what's more, they alter course more frequently than a running man under enemy fire. "Serpentine" does not adequately describe the policy movements of the true believers.
The remedies bandied about to combat the scourge of global warming often conflict with previous remedies or embrace actions once considered contributors to the problem in order to...solve the problem. Case in point, the possible method being considered by the Obama administration to cool the planet; shooting pollutants into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. What that means is they want to inject sulfur pellets into the atmosphere.
A few decades ago, liberal minstrels composed song after song bemoaning the effects acid rain was having on the waterways of the world, killing fish and algae, destroying ecosystems and the like. The culprit was pollution from factories, sulfur being spewed into the atmosphere by these evil entities. Now John Holdren, Obama's top science advisor wants to repeat that process on purpose. (Bear in mind that Holdren was also the science advisor to Al Gore in the making of An Inconvenient Truth.)
It is an interesting bit of irony that we are told that the sun's fluctuations have little or no effect on the climate but rather that it is man's activities to blame. So why the insane plan to block the sun's rays?
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this plan is that it will likely cause more CO2 to remain aloft, since SO2 falling into the oceans in the form of acid rain will have a stunting effect on their ability to absorb CO2. Then again, maybe that's the plan; create measurable increases in CO2 levels in order to more easily sell an increased tax levy on it to the mesmerized masses.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
"Instead of working to achieve power by an armed coup we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the results will be guaranteed by their own Constitution! Any lawful process is slow. But sooner or later we shall have a majority - and after that Germany."- Adolph Hitler, spoken while in prison in 1924.
Barack Obama returned from his European trip this morning and, as promised, will soon sign into law the Edward M. Kennedy National Service Act. Ostensibly a measure to promote "selfless acts" of civic duty, I maintain that it is nothing more than the promulgation of his call for a "National Civilian Security Force", a subject that, since the campaign, Obama has been reticent to address even when questioned on it.
For anyone who remembers the video of the kids dressed in camouflage uniforms and reciting in strange cadence the virtues of Barack Obama, the particulars of this program should be nothing short of chilling. The legislation mentions uniforms that would be worn by the volunteers and the need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution to focus on training future public sector leaders. The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses." Another stunning part of the program is the intent to indoctrinate elementary school children:
"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."
To make matters worse, both houses of congress rushed this through the legislative process with bipartisan support, meaning that republicans also gave it the thumbs up. In fact, it is so named because Orrin Hatch added Ted Kennedy's name at the last minute to "honor the legacy" of the junior Kennedy. When the walls come crashing down around us, you can be certain that these enablers in congress will play the classic role of Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.
The maddening and infuriating aspect of this is the absolute truth in the adage which states that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and no matter how many times it's mentioned, it happens anyway. During the Major War Figures Trials of 1945 Hans Frank, the Governor-general of Nazi-occupied Poland, had this to say:
"Don't let anybody tell you that they had no idea. Everybody sensed there was something horribly wrong with the system."
Well, I'm shouting it from the rooftops today. Will anyone listen? Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Stopping by for a visit in Turkey at the end of his European trip, President Obama has been going out of his way to appeal to Muslims and assure them that we mean them no harm. At one point I could have sworn I heard strains of Kumbaya floating on the gentle breeze in Arabic. He claimed that the United States "is not and never will be at war with Islam", much to the delight of many in the Arab community.
Speaking to the Turkish parliament on Monday, Obama also seemed to take yet another swipe at his predecessor, but it was his choice of analogy that struck me as being utterly at odds with his own economic philosophy. Referring to the current "war on terror" - for lack of a term of which he'd approve - Obama also said, "you cannot put out fire with flames", which I have previously argued is precisely his preferred method for dealing with our financial woes.
Alas, I digress...
His rhetoric in Turkey may be pleasing to Arab ears, but he may be committing a tactical error, sacrificing future peace and security for a brief and immediate pat on the back from people who can't quite grasp the fact that they are unlikely to get what they ultimately want. It's a dangerous game Obama is playing for a gratification that is destined to be short-lived, and I wouldn't mind at all if it were his own personal risk at stake, but that is obviously not the case. He is putting us all at risk with his posturing while sending an erroneous message to the Arabs. Either that, or they are not quite receiving it correctly, but they are clearly getting the wrong idea.
Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit is a prime example of this, exhibiting a cautious exuberance at Obama's words. In Cairo on Monday, he told reporters, "We appreciate the new more advanced position of the US towards the Muslim world". He added, "The Arab-Israeli conflict and the continuation of Israel's occupation of Arab lands constitutes a main cause of tension in the world which feeds extremist and terrorist forces," signalling a belief that under Obama the U.S. is somehow going to oust Israel from the region.
With a people who become so incensed by a mere artist's rendering of their god that they will burn alive innocents or saw off the heads of others, it is not considered very wise to dangle a carrot only to yank it just out of reach. The longer the taunted is led to believe that the carrot is attainable, the more volatile the reaction when the reality that it is not sets in, and as we have learned from events not so distant, the explosion could be terrible.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This has got to be stopped.
Stuart Varney of The Wall Street Journal writes:
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
Judge Napolitano spells out the origins of the piece by Varney...
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, April 3, 2009
The federal government is at it again. The Federal Trade Commission is currently reviewing online advertising practices and is eyeing measures that could have a chilling effect on the methods utilized by companies hawking products on the Internet. Equally disturbing are the ramifications this could have for bloggers who assist in the promotion of advertising deemed "untruthful" by the FTC.
Before anyone begins cheering loudly at the prospect of a perceived reduction in spam banner ads, I beseech thee to consider once again the over-stepping by the federal government as originally intended by the founding fathers in regards to the constitution. While many of us roll our eyes at the ridiculous claims made by some of these advertisements, we must seriously weigh their demise against the perils of granting ever more far-reaching powers to Washington. Someday, someone will demand that the government silence you and when that happens, based on the current trajectory of seizure of power, there may be no one left to defend your right to speak.
The new guidelines being explored by the FTC do not target only the purveyors of products on the web, however. If enacted, these new rules will expose bloggers to litigation as well, and what is not yet clear is how far these rules will go. There are ads on this very blog and while I make no contribution as to their content, I could be held liable for damages as a result of their products purchase and consumption if proved detrimental to the consumer.
Perhaps what is most troublesome about this whole affair is the assumption by government that people are too stupid to make judgements on their own behalf and, therefore, need protection from their own decisions. In other words, if someone sees an ad promising that "these new and improved wax wings will enable you to fly like a bird, GUARANTEED!", and that person plunges to their death from the roof of a high rise urban building, the seller and the blogger will both be open to lawsuits by surviving members of the idiot's family. Worse yet is the prospect that someone may post something similar - fully intended as satire - and still be subject to suit.
It is so ironic that politicians in D.C. seem to be moving toward a truth-only society with severe consequences for violations. Irony epitomized, I might add. But I am reminded of the old west travellers who sold their wares and potions along any road or in any town that they felt would yield the greatest sales. Most people knew that the promises were baseless but there were always enough folks in each town to sustain the salesman.
Shame on all those who actually purchased magic elixer from the snake-oil salesman of old, bravo to those who dismissed him with a wave of the hand and a hearty guffaw, but kudos to all who were still free to make that choice on their own. That was America, land of the free. I don't know what we will call her a few years from now. Slayer of free enterprise works for me.