I saw a video today, posted by a friend I have only met once, that was one of the most stunning displays of our nation's decline that I have ever seen. And while I was outraged by the attitude of the officer in this video, I must also confess that I am no longer surprised by it. The only reason that I even write about it, however, is for the simple fact that it was an officer of the law who flaunted such a blatant disregard for the constitution, which he acknowledged was the document he was sworn to uphold.
I have long ago become desensitized to the infuriating ignorance of not the garden variety of Obama voter, but of those who still refuse to admit the error of their ways. I have already forgiven the voters who have realized - without outside coercion - that theirs was a grave mistake. Additionally, I have begun - perhaps all too optimistically - to consider this fiasco in which we find ourselves as a necessary evil, while bending my knee in the hope that the lesson does not cost more than its worth.
Getting back to the video, though, is an exercise in the cold-water realization that we are not merely subjected to the whims of a thin majority of ordinary voters, people who have been fed a steady diet of propaganda and have voted for the first time in their lives, based on lies. Nor can racial motivations be blamed, for many of the plaintive voices of late have been those of "color".
No, what frightened me the most about this video is a combination of the words uttered coupled with the person who uttered them, a law enforcement officer who is allegedly learned in the...LAW! Watch for yourself and make your own determination...
It may be argued that the officer, obviously exasperated by his encounter with a well-behaved and knowledgable protester, was utilizing his training in dealing with just such a situation. The argument could also be made that that officer needs a refresher course in conflict resolution and constitutional law. Perhaps he is more accustomed to the violent mind in a crowd, and I have no doubt as to his capability in such a scenario, but I also question his mental acumen when confronted with a well-equipped citizen, armed with information rather than incendiary devices.
The worst outcome of this encounter, however, is the exposure of a deep-seated belief in a reality manufactured and not borne of actual reality, an ideology fabricated by an educational system based on fantasy rather that fact. I would prefer to classify it as a "reality" based more on desire than environment, what is wished for rather than what actually is. It has become the goal of the liberal to create his own reality rather than adapt to what God has given him, and it has caused a rip in the fabric of society, evidenced by this tragic display.
Friday, August 28, 2009
I saw a video today, posted by a friend I have only met once, that was one of the most stunning displays of our nation's decline that I have ever seen. And while I was outraged by the attitude of the officer in this video, I must also confess that I am no longer surprised by it. The only reason that I even write about it, however, is for the simple fact that it was an officer of the law who flaunted such a blatant disregard for the constitution, which he acknowledged was the document he was sworn to uphold.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Despite the seemingly innocuous and romantic references to the Kennedy clan as some sort of Camelot, the notion should have caused ordinary Americans to recoil in horror at the very mention of it. However, it began in a simpler time when American life was still compared to less fortunate countries as superior, and proudly so. To be certain, with the perpetual fascination of Medieval times shared by Americans - even to this day, with the Renaissance Fairs so popular - that hobby has never been meant as a wish to return to such times. And yet we have, to some extent, through the glorification of them. How curious...
The Founding Fathers decided that they had had enough of the tyrannical monarchy and so rebelled and formed this Union, sacrificing much to launch it. While the King was not what today would be considered a tyrant, the tight control exerted was more than the Founders and the people could bear, thus the rebellion.
Being religious men who craved nothing more than freedom from the strict control of a ruling class - and fully realizing that grown adults were more than capable of governing themselves - America was born under the vision of great men. Certainly, there were experiments that failed, such as a brief try at a socialistic system, but it became evident all too quickly that motivation removed was the petri dish for sloth. So they abruptly reverted back to the philosophy of personal success at personal risk. The new country flourished and became the worlds most dominant in record time.
Jealousy would be the next deadly sin to permeate the societal consciousness, and it was the perceived "injustice" that success was not for everyone that would facilitate the downward spiral in which we now find ourselves. Many Americans today still stridently cling to the belief that Congress is comprised of people we elect to serve our interests. Many still believe that we, the people, own every seat in Congress.
The problem is, those we've elected no longer share such beliefs. The hierarchic Throne we fought to achieve independence from has found its way back into the mindsets of the people we elected to take care of government business while we took care of our own, but they have made it abundantly clear - at least in their minds - that we have no business of our own, whether it be commercial business or private, such as our diets and our still-legal - albeit temporarily - vices.
Forgive me, but I do not recall the exact time, whether late last year or early this year, but I do recall Ted Kennedy trying to persuade whatever controlling entity to let his wife "take his seat" in the event of his demise. Now, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is faced with the choice of appointing a replacement to "fill Kennedy's seat". Inadvertently constructing a monarchy in America, the people have enabled this notion of possession that was never intended to be, and it is not limited to only the national level. Long forgotten is the intent by the Founders that the people own those seats.
This sense of royalty is on obvious display at the current spate of angry town hall meetings, where supposed servants of the people now arrogantly berate and belittle the very people they have come to hear; their constituents. The outright contempt for their employers could not be more clear as Congressmen either tell people to "mind their own damn business" or show proper identification to simply ask a question.
We, the people, have bestowed upon ourselves this ruling class by our reluctance to excel and also by our romanticizing of the days of yore. Little did we know that such an innocent fondness for history would result in our ultimate ruination, as the powerful would seize upon such revelry as the actual wishes of the masses.
Perhaps it's not too late, as people have been fierce in their outrage regarding the health care reform looming on the horizon, but I caution you; do not be timid in opposing it out of some expected level of respect for a deceased member of a royal family that never really existed. Camelot was for a long-past time, and dressing up and enjoying an afternoon of merriment in its memory is fine. Just know where to draw the line when it really matters.
As of this posting, we are still a free people. Keep that flame lit, always.
Democrats have a grotesque way of turning the loss of one of their own into an opportunity. And those who depart seem to do so at just the right moment. With the American people furiously and vociferously resisting Obamacare, Democrats may begin calling it "Teddycare", something that the deceased senator unsuccessfully attempted to inflict on the people for over 40 years.
Even as the endless stream of Kennedy accolades rain down on us from all angles, surviving members of Congress and the president are positioning to play on the loss of Teddy in an unsavory display of opportunistic disgrace.
I am reminded of the death of Senator Paul Wellstone in October of 2002, and also of the dreadful "memorial service" the Democrats held in his honor. Struggling to hold onto control of the Senate at that time, and with the election only days away, speakers at Wellstone's memorial hijacked what should have been a somber moment and turned it into a pre-election pep rally.
On November 1st, 2002, Peggy Noonan wrote a story in the Wall Street Journal titled "No Class", in which she speculated on what Wellstone may have thought about that debacle. Written from the perspective of Wellstone's spirit, she had him admonishing those attendees about their judgement, pointing out that in his "new place", perspectives change. One must wonder what Kennedy has learned on his new journey, if anything yet. It's still early.
Aside from the obvious vulgarity in what the Democrats are poised to embark upon, however, is the inevitable tactical blunder in using an ailing and ultimately dead member of Congress in this way. People will understand all too well that Kennedy had the best health care our money could buy, and he still died. Holding him out as the poster child for universal health care will ultimately backfire.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Let's clear one important thing up right now before we go any further. The pompous self-righteousness of the left would be comical if it were not so appalling, regarding the "harsh interrogation techniques" that Attorney General Holder is about to re-investigate. We're told that so-called "Jack Bauer" tactics don't work except on television, but those tactics would be used by any one of them - forgive the pun, liberally - if the detainee had their child locked away somewhere and they were fortunate enough to capture the SOB, and I'm willing to bet that no quarter would be given in the pursuit of knowledge necessary to save that child.
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford, NY) was incensed by this news and told The Politico so in no uncertain terms, basically echoing the point made in the previous paragraph. He said that it made one wonder "whose side are they on"? I agree.
Shameless displays of hypocrisy are a common trait of the liberal, simply because they rely on outrageous denial even in the face of damning evidence. For example, Howard Dean was taped on a show the other day saying that Republicans are out to undermine the president and, therefore, are out to undermine the country. When confronted about that by Griff Jenkins of Fox News, Dean simply lied and denied that he had said that; emphatically, I might add. Here is Dean's quote:
This Republican Party is — this shrinking Republican Party is just determined to undermine President Obama and unfortunately you have to undermine the country in order to undermine the president. I think that's too bad.And here is the video of that original quote and subsequent lie:
The irony - to get back to the Democrats sudden disdain for the CIA - lies in the history of their former outrage over the Valerie Plame affair. Heads had to roll as a result of her alleged "outing" because the Democrats simply could not stand to see an agent exposed or damaged in any way. Now, however, they want to lynch the lot of them over claims that they were mean to terrorists. Perhaps someone should remind the American public that the Speaker of the House is the one to ask just how mean the CIA has been to murderous scum. Then we'll see just how quickly this witch hunt evaporates. Just a hunch...
While the Democrats wage war on liberty in America under the guise of benevolence, ordinary people - who have had their fill of the systematic trampling of constitutional protections - have begun to awaken and fight back. So far, the "revolution" has been peaceable enough, if not rambunctious, but as the people who are elected to serve and represent us continue to treat us as mere subjects, the recollection of the original Revolution is dragged further from the bottom of the ocean of history. And the more these elitist cretins denigrate the people by suggesting that their outrage is insincere, the more sincere that outrage becomes.
I mentioned in another piece that Democrats have a propensity towards self-harm; the events unfolding before us could not more perfectly illustrate that case. So completely have they lost touch with the realities the rest of us face on a daily basis, that they believe the propaganda regurgitated by their own state-run media, and refuse to accept as genuine the mood of the people, at their own peril.
I was just recently and rhetorically asking a colleague why he thought that the Republicans were so silent on the machinations of the controlling Democrats. I have since begun to believe that they are actually letting the fish take the line. America has been compared to ancient Rome in numerous tomes and opinion pieces, my own included, wherein we are destined to follow her ruination. Perhaps it is inevitable at some point in the future, but I doubt now that this is the time, and I am somewhat heartened at that notion.
Ordinary Romans - while having a system similar to ours - were still, at the end, subjects of the emperor, and too fearful to mount any sort of actual resistance. From what I have seen of late in small towns across America, I do believe that the power is still consolidated in the People by more than half. If we let that balance slip, it is our doom.
That must never be allowed to happen. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The cardinal rule in economics could not possibly be more simple: do not spend more than you earn. Normal, everyday Americans have lived by - or have tried mightily to live by - this rule for generations. To be certain, there have been times when even the most miserly among us has strayed from the path of fiscal responsibility, but it has always been done with deep regret and nearly intolerable angst and remorse, coupled with a fierce determination to right the misstep as soon as possible. Honor has historically been the motivating force.
In just the short half century that I have inhabited this Earth - and more specifically, this country - honor has been purposefully denigrated and responsibility removed from the lexicon of American society. The sense of entitlement has permeated our consciousness, causing us to crave and demand that which we simply cannot afford simply because we want it, and we want it now.
Credit had its genesis in the form of survival as rural farmers found themselves battling not only the market place and their own operating costs, but the devastating effects of Earth's volatile climate. It eventually became necessary to borrow in order to complete the harvest for the simple task of paying the bills, and subsequently the newer debt. Somewhere along the line, however, the notion of debt was passed down among generations and accepted as a fact of life.
This desensitization has only fed upon itself and manifested into a sense of normalcy, so much so that we now buy a cup of coffee at the quickie-mart with a piece of plastic without even considering the humiliation such an act would have brought upon our grandfathers. Worst of all, we now are running the country with the same mentality.
Our government has become a behemoth that is consuming resources like no gluttonous family of four could ever imagine. The practice has as its roots the New Deal, instituted by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and implemented ostensibly as a means out of the Great Depression. Ironically, FDR's spending orgy had no impact on the economic recovery from that time, for it was the demand created by the need for manufacturing in the second World War that ultimately pulled the nation out of that morass.
What was borne of that time, however, was the misconception that more government was better for the people, something of a complete anathema to the founding principles of the United States of America. Since FDR, there was a brief cessation of the erosion of those principles conducted by the Reagan administration, which attempted to restore the country to a time of limited government intrusion. They briefly succeeded. Then, George H. W. Bush ran into trouble and famously reneged on a campaign promise. No elucidation should be necessary.
Bill Clinton managed to steer the country through relatively calm seas and proved to be a harmless steward in that time. Admittedly partisan politics and what should be equally admittedly boneheaded maneuvers by the CiC - Bill Clinton - derailed what may have been considered a somewhat successful two-term reign. Then the fun really began...
George W. Bush was elected - sorry folks, he really was - and the gloves were off. Eager to derail what they perceived as an invalid administration, the vitriol from the other side of the aisle reached uncharted proportions, and set the stage for a new level, complete with an entire set of new rules regarding what precedents could be surpassed.
After the 9/11 attacks, Bush's popularity soared as a result of his down-home approach to the catastrophe, resonating with the ordinary American's thirst for vengeance. Easily winning approval for massive war funding on the sentiments of the electorate, things were going swimmingly for the new president. Then, when Congress shifted to opposition control in 2006, things went south, with leaders such as Pelosi and Reid complaining bitterly about the massive debt being run up by Bush, aided by a compliant media.
At better than a projected $400 billion deficit, both went apoplectic, warning the people of the fiscal tragedy that Bush was prepared to inflict on our grandchildren. Now, a mere $400 billion seems like a pittance, while the same assessment is now being made about $9 trillion by those very same naysayers. It appears that - to the Democrats - no amount of our money is too much to gain control over our lives, while a mere twopence is too costly for the preservation of the very same.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Has anyone heard of the Patient's Choice Act of 2009?Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
The Patient's Choice Act is a bill co-sponsored by two Republican senators (Tom Coburn, M.D. [R-OK] and Richard Burr [R-NC]), and two Republican congressman (Paul Ryan [R-WI] and Devin Nunes [R-CA]). For one thing, the very existence of the bill dispels the erroneous notion that Republicans have "no solutions", only opposition to Obama. Not many know this, however, because the mainstream media does not report on it.
No, it seems that they've still got too much Obama-dust in their eyes to actually do their jobs of informing the American people - their consumers - about matters that affect their lives. There is an agenda to get pushed and, by God, the media is going to push hard. Since they won't inform the public, it's left to people like me to do, so I will post this video and let Rep. Ryan explain the bill in his own words.
In light of all the angst and turmoil at town hall meetings across America this summer, why have the American people not been better informed about this bill? Bear in mind, that video is from May, three months ago. I challenge you; type in Patient's Choice Act in Google, click "news", sort by date and see what the search yields.
Tell people about this so that they can bring it up at town hall meetings.
Muslim women in Afghanistan who violate the Qur'an are subject to death by stoning. This is the culture that Obama wants us to embrace and understand. Some will argue that the practice is relegated to a small minority of Muslims and that Islam is truly a "religion of peace", insisting that such things happen in remote areas of the Middle East and that we can't control it anyway. While the control part may be true, the rest is not.
There are "peaceful" Muslims who live right here in the United States who go to work each day, pay their taxes, mow their lawns and attend church (or mosque) just like the rest of us. To all outward appearances they are just like the rest of us. That is, until something upsets them.
Case in point: Fathima Rifqa Bary is a 17-year-old girl who - until recently - lived with her Muslim family in Ohio. Now she is in Florida, living with a Christian pastor and his family, whom she met on Facebook, and fighting to stay there. Last Friday, Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson issued an order that she remain with the Florida family pending an investigation into whether she would be placed in harms way if forced to return to Ohio.
The reason? She is a convert to Christianity and fears that if returned, she will be killed by her own father. Her father, on the contrary, claims that the pastor runs a Christian cult, and kidnapped and brainwashed his daughter. Both scenarios are credible and not without precedent, so I offer this video for the reader to make a determination.
While she does seem a bit overzealous in her desire to find Jesus, she also appears to terrified, a decided understatement. With the history of honor killings here in America, she has every right to be.
On February 12, a Muslim TV broadcaster who was served divorce papers by his wife, proceeded to stab her several times and then beheaded her. Ironically, in 2007 the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) awarded Muzzammil Hassan for his creation of Bridges TV, which he said was designed to counter anti-Muslim sentiment and stereotypes. They did not revoke the award.
On July 6, 2008 in Jonesboro, Georgia, Chaudry Rashid strangled his 25-year-old daughter with a bungee cord because she had decided to divorce her arranged husband. There are other cases which lend credence to Bary's fears. Will end up as one more in the list of statistics? I hope not.
So the question remains, how could Obama possibly expect Americans to embrace such a culture?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
While we were all distracted by bank bailouts, auto industry bailouts, and the spectre of nationalized medicine, the U.S. State Department made a very interesting appointment, quietly and under the radar. Apparently eager to implement the tenets of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement project, Obama had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appoint Farah Pandith to head the new Office of the United States Special Representative to Muslim Communities.
My first reaction to this was the obvious incredulity at the government having a special religious office, since the left has been fighting for that mythical "separation of church and state" for so long. That feeling was short-lived, however, as I continued to look into this and it was replaced by horror.
Considering what has transpired in Europe regarding Islam, it defies logic that our government would even entertain a program such as this. In the name of tolerance, Britain has been transformed into a quasi-Muslim state, with Shar'ia law being enforced alongside British law. Currently, there are 85 Shar'ia courts across Britain with many Muslims calling for their own police force. France has fared no better. Take this from the American Thinker:
Britain is not alone in its Muslim plight. In 2005, France experienced massive Muslim riots in 300 cities. Public buildings were firebombed, 200 policemen were injured, and 4,000 were arrested. This is not unusual as a Muslim response to perceived offenses. Remember the Danish cartoons?That article goes on to mention the increasing "no-go zones" in both Britain and France, large areas willingly ceded to Muslim enclaves and where non-Muslims are not safe. Here in America there are already such areas where non-Muslims cannot enter, and there are those who wish to adopt Shar'ia law. Obama referring to America as "the largest Muslim country" a few months ago is a chilling utterance, as are his recent apology tours of the Middle East.
The central problem is assimilation. Most Muslims don't move to a country with the purpose of becoming real citizens of that country. Muslims don't want to be British or French. Muslims come for the wealth of the west, and to make the west Muslim. The evidence is transparent to anyone paying attention. The Parisian riots of 2005 were committed by second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants.
Obama's U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is designed to condition us to respect Muslims and accept their culture, and still others argue that not all Muslims are radicals. We heard enough of that from George W. Bush, and while it has a certain warm-and-fuzzy sound to it, the fact remains that the values of allegedly "peaceful" Muslims are alien to us. As Burt Prelutsky points out:
Getting back to Muslims, there are people who would insist that we should distinguish between those who cut off the heads of their innocent victims and those who just want to live and let live. Well, I keep trying, heaven knows, but it’s not as easy as it sounds.I, for one, don't want to embrace such a culture, and I certainly don't want to aid in its proliferation. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama ought to concentrate on his solemn duty to advance the values of America and expect new arrivals to do the same. America, which boasts a population of affirmed Christians in the eighty percentile, is far from the largest Muslim country.
For instance, recently I read about a stomach-turning incident that took place in Phoenix, Arizona. It seems that four boys between the ages of nine and 14 lured an eight-year-old girl into a shed and took turns raping her. While that was pretty damn loathsome, what was even more disgusting is what took place afterward. In the little girl’s presence, her father, a Muslim refugee from Liberia, told the police, “Take her. I don’t want her.”
It seems that in what passes for their culture, the child had brought shame on the family.
I want to keep it that way. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, August 20, 2009
It may be a combination of things converging all at once, be it Obama's relatively youthful exuberance and his desire to succeed immediately, coupled with his lack of experience in actual accomplishment, or it could be interpreted as something far more sinister, such as a diabolical plan for the ultimate ruination of America. Which, I am incapable of discerning, which is why I write. Mine is a mission of thought provocation, designed to stimulate the thought processes of the reader and to trigger cognizance. To be honest, if you're already reading here, you are pre-engaged anyway.
We have all seen the billboards prominently displayed on the roads across America, the ones with the [whichever] State Trooper propped up against his patrol car, speaking into his radio mic, and the words "Speed Kills" just above or below the picture. Those are ad campaigns designed to get drivers to slow down and reduce road fatalities.
More often than not it is the driver who is killed, along with any passengers who may be on board. So it is with Obama driving a bus loaded with giddy congressional Democrats, feeling as invincible as the teen just embarking on life's journey. Their current domination of the political process is responsible for that feeling, and they can't envision the bus slamming into a tree at high velocity.
Somehow mesmerized by Obama, Democrats are so eager to pass dubious and disastrous health care reform this year that they are poised to commit political suicide. How they cannot see this is incomprehensible, for even if they do nothing else this year, they are still facing trouble in 2010, according to Charlie Cook, who is already predicting a possible net loss in the House of Representatives in excess of 20 seats.
Of course, Congress never does "do nothing", and Democrats have a peculiar penchant for self-inflicted wounds, so it is small wonder that they are preparing for triage. Since Obama has successfully ginned up Democrats with the promise of finally reaching their long-sought after goal of social utopia, i.e., Universal Health Care, they have become blinded by their pending euphoria.
Attempting to assuage the concerns of the people over the cost of reform - I prefer to call it lying - Obama is presenting himself as fiscally responsible by insisting that his plan for health care will be "deficit neutral". People, however, particularly those at Tea Parties and Town Halls, know that all that means is that someone is going to have to pay for it. If you are broke but still want that $5,000 home theater system, and you refuse to go into debt to get it, the only option is to receive it as a gift or...have someone else pay for it.
Perhaps he's been deliberately desensitizing the people to his numerous broken promises in the hope that by the time he breaks the promise of no new taxes, we'll be so used to it that his loss of political capital will be minute. Since government is certainly not going to receive health care reform as a gift, that means that they'll need someone else to pay for it; that would be us.
Completing the recipe for disaster, the Democrats are inching closer to employing the "nuclear option", whereby the majority party locks the opposition out of the process. In other words, Democrats are preparing to ram universal health care down our throats all by themselves without Republicans voting, thus owning the debacle. That is something the people will remember in an election year and something the Republicans will be sure to remind us of next year.
Such an act of betrayal by elected officials will most assuredly make Charlie Cook's current estimate look extremely conservative in scope.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Anyone who has ever clicked on an ad on the Internet, out of simple curiosity at the prospect of "working from home" and making fabulous money, is no doubt all too familiar with the accompanying barrage of subsequent emails when they opt out and decide that the program is a scam.
Once "voluntarily" exposed to the program, the unsuspecting visitors to these sites are latched onto by the purveyors like lampreys in a seemingly serene lake, who cling like leeches hoping to make weary their prey until they succumb. Users then undergo weeks of spam-reporting to their providers until the tide subsides. The fate of those who dare to actually register is not so easily reversed.
So it is with the auto dealerships across America that, naively believing that the "Cash for Clunkers" program would be a boon, have since learned otherwise. Consider the dealerships as the Internet service providers, and their clientele the poor end-users. The only difference is that while the end-users are off and happily driving their new vehicles, the provider is left holding the note.
"Cash for Clunkers" was supposed to be the "get-rich-quick-scheme" of the Democrats and the new administration. Designed to save the environment while stimulating the economy, it at first seemed a huge success, causing consumers to flock to dealers in droves, hoping to seize on the New Deal. It worked for the consumer; not so much for the already-ailing small businesses. (Never mind the negative impact on the environment, as it requires an enormous amount of energy to merely comply with the conditions of the program, destroying those vehicles traded in on the program).
Since its inception, about one half of all dealerships in the New York Metro area have decided that they can no longer bear the cost of the program. One might ask how this could be so, since the program is the brainchild of the Federal Government, with all of the financial backing that that institution enjoys.
That answer is rather simple, since Uncle Sam has belatedly realized that tapping the allegedly bottomless well of the American taxpayer would be political suicide. The only option left to an ostensibly well-meaning bureaucracy is to risk the spectre of the Repo Man, stiffing the people whom they once relied upon to aid in the success of a doomed program.
In the New York area alone, only 2% of the "clunkers" money has been reimbursed to dealers, who bear the cost up front and then have to trust the government for pay back. As a result, about half of those dealerships have abandoned the program, opting out while praying that an increasingly destitute institution will remain solvent and repay the outlay they have expended.
Since the government is having trouble paying on the promise to car dealerships, and considering that Medicare and Social Security are plummeting towards bankruptcy, one has to wonder how anyone would entrust the same government with the fate of their health care. With all of his infomercials since becoming elected, Obama is less of a president and more of an annoying pop-up advertisement, and he should be clicked into the junk bin and reported as spam.
Breaking tradition practiced by all of his predecessors, President Obama is now reaching out to radical Islamists in Pakistan through special envoy, Richard Holbrooke. Explaining the shift in U.S. policy, Vali Nasr, senior adviser to Holbrooke said:
"The purpose is to broaden the base of American relations in Pakistan beyond the relatively narrow circle of leaders Washington has previously dealt with."Former U.N. Ambassador under the Bush administration, John Bolton, rightly questions such a move, particularly at such a time when Afghanistan is poised to hold elections even as our forces battle the Taliban in that country. Bolton also says that our number one goal right now - with a nuclear-armed Pakistan - should be to strenghthen our ties with the Pakistani military because "the gravest risk is radical penetration of the military". I happen to agree.
It is perplexing that Obama has so easily given up on negotiating with Republicans regarding universal health care because they are unwavering in their opposition. And yet, he feels the urge to try to assuage those whose only desire is to see us dead. Unless he plans on killing us all, there is little he can offer to the radicals.
Even more confounding is the latest Gallup poll, which gives Obama very high approval ratings on foreign policy. It seems people like a president that apologizes to the world on their behalf, while claiming to be just like everyone but them. Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
First, I think it's just a tad weird for the President of the United States to have his own MySpace page. That being said, and while I'm not entirely convinced that these are even really his, take a look at two different links supposedly to Barack Obama's MySpace pages. Pay particular attention to his profile.
Barack Obama MySpace page #1
During the campaign.
Barack Obama MySpace page #2
As Commander in Chief.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Sphere: Related Content
Divinity may only be revoked by man when it is first manufactured by him.
It would appear that Barack Obama, the darling of the media and what was billed to be an overwhelming majority of liberal Americans, is shedding support faster that a barnacle-laden whale who manages to somehow leap into the stream of a powerful fire hose. So confident was he that the Saul Alinsky playbook was coming to fruition - and with such ease - that Obama's momentum carried him just a bit too far out of the water, exposing his underbelly to a torrent much greater than the normal currents of motion.
While the people complained bitterly about the rampant spending of the administration and its "stimulus bill", all too often the plaintive wails were muted, conducted in the undercurrent of emails, and arrogantly derided by a leftist machine when they took on the form of actual protests, e.g., the Tea Parties. It wasn't until the allied forces of the Democrats, in what is ostensibly the two most powerful branches of government - the Legislative and the Executive - began to threaten a brazen overhaul of the American health care system, that the people rose up and finally spoke.
Unable to quell the passion of the Town Hall protesters through derision - a classic Alinsky tool, I might add - the administration tried its hand at outright tyrannical measures, setting up a website for people to "snitch" on other people opposed to the coming debacle. When that attempt at suppression through fear succeeded only in stoking the fire in its intended target, the administration realized that it had perhaps bitten off more than it could chew.
The electorate in America has historically been more than willing to give benefit of the doubt to its leaders, whether they voted for a candidate or not, and Obama and his people misread a relatively placid political landscape as ignorance on issues and easy acquiescence to "ideas". They thought that it would either be easy to blast a heinous proposal by us like a Mariano Rivera fast ball or, at the least, brush us off the plate. Neither happened, and it threw the president into a tailspin. While he has been giddily swinging away at softballs, tossed underhand by schoolgirls, the conservative movement has faced him on the mound, dug their cleats in and battled, forcing 20 pitches per batter.
Ordinary citizens have accomplished an extraordinary feat, all without an ounce of blood being spilled. They have derailed a disastrous agenda while battling upstream against the onslaught of Obamania, and the tide of it is ebbing. Once eager to "pass it and pass it fast", the Democrats have succumbed to the resistance they have met, and not only have pushed back the debate until after recess, but have begun to amend the bills currently under consideration.
*Interesting side note: After they scoffed at the Sarah Palin claim of "death panels", the Democrats have removed that provision from the proposal. I would love to hear an explanation of how something that was purported to not exist could then be removed.
Coupled with the increasing number of people declaring themselves to be more conservative, I must offer my hearty congratulations to you, the American People, for your moxie and intense love of country. At first I was petrified that Obama was gong to steamroll us all before we realized we were flattened cartoon characters. Now, with the additional news that the snitch site has been disabled, I feel hope for the first time since November 4th.
Friday, August 14, 2009
2010 years ago, man brutalized and murdered Jesus. They were forgiven. Now man is at it again, albeit not in such a violent manner, as yet. And it's not just Jesus they're after although He is a preferred target.
While the Left in this country insists that there is no "war on God" - even as they continually attack anything to do with Him - they also fallaciously repeat the claim that the constitution erected a wall of separation between church and state. There is no such wall except in the imaginations of those who wish it to be.
Along with the deteriorating state of our society, America is now engaging in religious persecution and, in this case, prosecution. Ironically, this is the very thing the Founders sought to prohibit by their constitutional intent. How the liberals have bastardized the words.
Case in point: In Pensacola ,Florida, a school principal and an athletic director are facing a $5,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Their "crime"? They said "grace" at a luncheon, one at which there were no students present, according to one report. According to the article in the Washington Times, the school district had settled a suit - filed by the ACLU - out of court, agreeing to a variety of demands by the organization, one of which is chilling. From the article:
Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school's May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious."A known Christian"? That sounds like the disclosure of a criminal or otherwise sinister affiliation. And the ACLU wanted her banned from speaking on the chance that she may "say something religious". Excuse me, but aren't the two middle letters in their acronym "C" and "L", standing for Civil Liberties?
"She was the first student body president in 33 years not allowed to speak," he said.
Twisting the intended meaning of the Founders words to fit an agenda diametrically opposed to those very words is bad enough. Locking people up for daring to utter the name of God or his Son is precisely the type of behavior the Founders wanted to prevent, and now the left has successfully managed to distort that intent and use it against the people.
There is a consequence, however, that could make all of this seem insignificant by comparison. Lest we forget, we managed to piss off God long before Jesus came along, enough for him to wipe us all out, save for one man's family and a menagerie of animals. One would think the murder of His Son would have brought his wrath once more, but it was his Son that begged for mercy on our behalf. If these cretins manage to make it a crime to remember them, God and Son could very well become sufficiently angry again. Who will save us then? Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Usually characterized as a gesture of giving at personal sacrifice, philanthropy is considered a noble endeavor. Especially in America, people have proven to be quite generous, even those that are not very well to do, but historically this has only been the case when the act is strictly voluntary. For example, most people gladly tip for services but bristle at the notion of a tip being mandatory.
When George Soros decided to donate $35 million to a fund for poor school children in the State of New York for back-to-school needs, he exhibited philanthropy on a grand scale. But when the state government took federal stimulus funds - funds extracted from taxpayers in a nationwide confiscatory manner - to the tune of $135 million, even well-meaning people who do not want to see poor children suffer were outraged.
President Obama scoffed at the accusations that he was in favor of redistribution of wealth, but he also promised that the stimulus would never include pork. a promise that was promptly broken the moment the money left the gate. Now every child between the ages of 3 to 17 will receive 200 dollars each so that they are not doing without amenities when they return to school. The stipulation is that their families must be on welfare or receiving food stamps. Everyone else has to pay their own way with the money the government was kind enough to allow them to keep.
While I'm no big fan of George Soros, his gift to New York can be seen as magnanimous. What isn't known at this point is if his gift came with strings attached that required the state to pony up its share. There is reason to suspect as such, since some of his past prognostications have been rumored to have damaged the economies of small nations, Malaysia being one of them.
Should it come to light that there was a condition on his donation, it will call into question whether his was an act of true philanthropy. In the meantime, there can be no question that our government is now engaging in unabashed redistribution of our hard-earned money even as they look us in the eye and deny it.
Through all the murkiness and obfuscation of "the most transparent administration in history", we have learned little of the man or his intentions, despite the signs that abound. Yesterday however, in a rare appearance sans his trusty teleprompter, Obama slipped up in trying to use an analogy in defense of his health care dreams.
Seeking to assuage concerns that a government-run health care system would drive insurance companies out of business, the One had this to say:
"I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about, if you think about it, um, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. I mean, it's the post office that's always having problems".If thinking that an admission that government could screw up health care just as well as it has the Post Office is some form of assurance to the people, Obama achieved just the opposite. It would appear that the one thing about Obama of which we can be certain is that extemporaneous speaking is not his forté.
While I have joined the chorus of late in warning of the inherent dangers of this overreaching administration, coupled with a compliant Congress, there is more reason besides the spectre of tyranny at work in this universal health care debacle that needs consideration.
Aside from Obama's parapraxis yesterday, one must recall the discovery of the terrible negligence at Walter Reed Army Hospital, yet another shining example of how the government runs things. Add to that, visions of the Department of Motor Vehicles style health care, where you go through the line only to receive a ticket bearing something like "E278", and then waiting for the bright signs to match your ticket, enduring whatever pain all the while.
Consider the words carefully of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - who also happens to be the brother of White House strongman, Rahm Emanuel - who said:
"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).Consider also that an entity that believes spending more and faster is the best way to avoid bankruptcy now advocates for financial savings over human life, and it becomes quite clear that there is little they would deem heinous in their dealings with their constituents. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, August 10, 2009
Mr. (or Mrs.) Right-wing Extremist...Welcome To Your New HomeI'm not sure whether or not to start packing now so that I am prepared when they come for me. I somehow doubt they'll wait around while I select my most comfy shoes from the closet.
For those who may have forgotten, it was only four short months ago that our own Department Of Homeland Security labelled we on the right side of the political spectrum as "potential terrorists". As could be expected, the only play that story received in the mainstream media was a concerted effort to convince those in the "target zone" that they were overreacting. Then the story dried up, lasting about one sixteenth the amount of time the media covered the disappearance of Natalie Halloway.
Once again the media, in its seemingly sedentary stupor, appears to be content to lay on the sofa eating bon-bons in their fuzzy pink slippers while visions of Obama dance in their heads. What else could explain their absence on a story of such magnitude? What is that story that is so monumental, you may ask?
It is the story that the media has not made a story. It is the story - only four months after Auntie Janet labelled us as potential threats - of the Army National Guard advertising for Internment/Resettlement Specialists. Yes, you read that right. From the GoArmy website, the first paragraph of the job description:
Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.If you follow the link, you'll also see some bullet-point duties described, such as "Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program". If that does not conjure images of re-education camps for anyone, please raise your hand.
Who shall be housed in these new "facilities"? Call me crazy - yes, I'm sure there is a barracks with my name on it already - but when someone pays for advertising, they usually do so expecting heavy demand. The Army is also using Monster.com to recruit.
Now, close your eyes, lean back and try to imagine if this were under the Bush/Cheney administration. And while you're in such deep concentration, try to figure out if our new "dorms" will be called barracks or Baracks. Sphere: Related Content
I've noticed a disturbing similarity between Obama and Louis FarrakhanMany years ago, in the midst of a particularly difficult financial period of my life, I delivered newspapers on the East end of Long Island in the wee hours of the morning. On Sundays at around 7:00AM there was a radio station that broadcast the hour-long sermons of Louis Farrakhan. Being curious about the man at the time, I began to listen to what he had to say.
The first time I listened I was stunned by his message. I had heard so many things about him and I expected to hear him deliver a viscious diatribe, but what I initially heard was a passionate plea to his congregation for self-reliance. He told his black audience that they needed to be good fathers and good men, working hard for their own success and not relying on the white man to provide for them.
I remember thinking, "this is a great message, how could I have been so wrong about him?" That was the first half hour...
In the next half hour, after having roused a spirit of self determination and hope in the congregation, Farrakhan dashed those feelings by ranting how it was impossible for any of them to succeed because the white man was keeping them down. aside from being flat out wrong, I thought it especially cruel to do that to them, but my original suspicions about Farrakhan were suddenly reinstated. I listened every week for a few months, and week after week, the motif was the same.
Now we have Barack Hussein Obama following the same style, beginning speeches with hope and bipartisan kumbaya, then ending with an admonishment for his political foes. Watch the video below and see for yourself.
Sphere: Related Content
Congress Wants Even More Gulfstreams
Many of you are probably familiar with the situation, either currently or at one time in your lives; you're sweating it out, waiting for that next paycheck because the mortgage is due, or your taxes are due, or there is some other payment that must be made. Living paycheck to paycheck is a precarious place. How many of you had the brilliant idea that - strapped for cash - you could save a few thousand dollars by rushing to get a great deal on a new car? Not many, I'd wager.
That's what Congress is effectively trying to do with the purchase of three - oops, make that eight - new Gulfstream jets. In a time of financial suffering for a great portion of the country, and also a time of massive spending and takeovers by the federal government, they now feel like they need to spend an additional $550 million of our money. It is heartening that there is a bipartisan backlash and resistance to the notion, but the proponents' outrageous audacity is still infuriating.
But those proponents have a "valid" reason for their intended purchase; they are trying to save us money! That's right, those fiscally responsible members of Congress claim that the shiney, new jets will be cheaper to operate than the older aircraft currently in the fleet. It makes one wonder when Cash For Clunkers will be offered for older airplanes.
Individuals, particularly those in fiscal distress, would find a different way to cut costs. They would travel less. That is, of course, unless they had someone else's money with which to buy that new car. Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, August 8, 2009
In researching the debate over the health care reform bill, and trying to discern truth from distortion, I came across an Associated Press article about Sarah Palin's recent FaceBook posting. In her posting, she calls Obama's plan "downright evil" and claims it would create a "death panel", saying:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."The AP article then quickly points out that FactCheck.org rates the "rumor" as false, something Barack Obama keeps insisting, as well. But something caught my eye in the way the AP presented the case. Look closely at the sentence in the article:
"The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false."When I read "Annenberg Public Policy Center", a bell went off in my head. While the AP refers to the organization as "nonpartisan" - which might be true - I think they may still have a place in their hearts for the president, who used to Chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for four years...working closely with William Ayers.
That made me wonder what other significance may be attached to this connection, and I found my answer from a year-old article in American Thinker. The significance is two-fold, for it details both the outright lies and secrecy of the new president and his allies, and reveals the only executive experience Obama has ever had. While I and most people I know were astonished that the American people would elect such an inexperienced neophyte to the highest office in the land, we also forgot that he did have some experience running something after all.
Here are the first two paragraphs from the American Thinker article:
The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.So the only real experience Obama has is the squandering of "scores of millions of dollars". And now he's going to wreak the same havoc but on a much larger scale.
Add in the fact that former Weatherman and admitted terrorist William Ayers (whom Obama described in the Philadelphia debate as merely a "neighbor") was head of the operating arm of the CAC, working with Obama on distributing scores of millions of dollars to grantees in the wards of the city, and you have a topic that the Obama campaign wishes to avoid at all costs.
While the article was mistaken in its opening assessment - the media cloak never did lift - it does highlight the extreme protectionism surrounding Obama's past. Stanley Kurtz, of National Review Online, asked the University of Illinois of Chicago for access to the files and was granted it, only to have the permission rescinded shortly thereafter, something that is very unusual, considering that the library is publicly funded.
Now I have been informed by a friend that Sean Hannity is going to run an in-depth documentary tomorrow night at 9:00pm/Eastern time on the Fox News Channel. I urge everyone to watch the show. It is never too late to discover the truth. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, August 7, 2009
You could smell it in the air, like the scent of ozone from a rapidly approaching electrical storm. Red-state Americans - who for too long took more seriously their daily obligations of providing for their families over being political activists - have been trampled on one too many times. While that big dog on the porch knows that his duty of guarding his master's house is fulfilled by his mere presence, despite his obvious inertia, when poked with a stick a sufficient amount of times, he will fore go his sedentary state to respond.
What we are seeing now is a massive storm front that has migrated East from Chicago and settled over Washington, D.C. Our new president has begun to shed the sleek packaging bestowed upon him during the campaign - a successful marketing strategy - for the comfort of his own skin, and as the layers peel away, more and more people are beginning to recoil in horror. I struggle mightily to resist the urge to say, "I told you so".
Early successes for the administration, such as the stimulus package and the House passage of cap and trade, have only emboldened Obama. What this has done, however, is make him so confident that he has moved ahead of his cover fire, stepping from the shadows and exposing his nefarious agenda perhaps a little more quickly than either he - or his handlers - had intended.
There is a bounty of irony in this situation, as the agents of America's ultimate demise cry foul at the Tea Party and town hall conservatives' participation in exercising their rights to free speech. When Democrats send out talking point memos and register the deceased to actually vote in general elections, it is blithely defended as "community organizing". When Republicans respond in kind, Democrats suddenly shriek for a rule change, all the while sending out...talking point memos decrying the activities of the Republicans.
Not satisfied with a counter message in the media, the Democrats and the administration itself are actually packing the town hall meetings with supporters to counter the protests of genuine Americans with a grievance. It won't take long for the situation to get very ugly, but that may also be part of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi plan. Since the method of destroying America has always been one of orchestrated chaos, these transformers are not the least bit concerned about who gets hurt, so long as they get their way.
The polls show that a majority of Americans are opposed to universal health care, and yet these alleged servants of the people continue to forge ahead with their plans to inflict it on us anyway. When we dare to speak up, they recruit minions to intimidate us. We are way beyond the point of intimidation. And as they continue to recruit large men to bully us at these functions, there can be no doubt that our own large men will find their way into the fray. Escalation always begins this way.
While Chicago politics may have successfully been imported into Washington, they will never penetrate the insular walls of any red state. And when the conflict morphs beyond simple physical prowess and stature, my money is all down on the true patriots and constitutional adherents in this country.
Sometimes folks just don't understand the simple concept of letting sleeping dogs lie.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Obama and the democrats keep insisting that America needs universal health care, with Obama vowing the other day that the bill will pass this year because "it's what the people want". Perhaps they mean this in a strictly colloquial sense, as in the fact that they are our elected representatives makes anything that they want also what we want. While that is normally true, it certainly would not be if, for example, an elected member of congress decided to go on a murderous rampage.
While the reason for our system of representative government is mostly for expediency - it would be logistically impossible for the people to vote directly on every piece of legislation - there are times when the item is of such paramount importance and consequence that it must be put to a referendum. This is one such time.
While it is difficult to find an ordinary citizen who favors this monstrosity being foisted upon us, its proponents steadfastly insist that we do. Not content to merely stick to their guns, they are now trying to stifle the debate through fear, intimidation and subterfuge. While accusing the dissenters of being tools of a nefarious organizing machine and therefore insincere in their opposition, they have also begun attempting to organize their own network of informants. The White House is actually asking citizens to report other citizens for having an opposing viewpoint, a stunning departure from protocol. The White House website offers this:
For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.A simple click on the email@example.com link takes you to a ready-to-fill-in email form. How convenient.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org.
And the url for the page used to report "disinformation", ironically, is http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ The irony is that while the Joseph Goebbels philosophy is generally effective, its practice still makes nothing true, only believable. Obama thinks that if he just repeats his claim that "if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them" people will believe it, and he may be right, those "stubborn facts" are in direct conflict with his false statement. The bill itself states as much, noting that if someone changes or loses a job, the only option for healthcare will the "public option", or Obamacare.
There was another famous leader - whom I will not name - who used the tactic of having citizens snitch on one another, and his vision for his nation was nightmarish and abject misery. How interesting it is, as well, that in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is closing media outlets deemed to be disseminating "false information". Obama doesn't want the American people to judge his intent to inflict universal health care on us based on lies. How ironic that he didn't mind the American people voting him into the White House based on lies. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
For as long as I can remember liberal democrats held a monopoly on protests, sit-ins, marches and demonstrations as most conservatives were usually too busy building businesses and working to support their families to attend massive exhibits of civil unrest. In all that time - and with a great many events held by liberals - I do not recall Republican politicians claiming that these people were puppets of a "Democrat machine", but I do recall the indignation liberals displayed when they were called idiots for marching or unpatriotic for burning the American flag.
Perhaps the conservatives were perceived as weak by the left for their failure to engage. My, how things have changed. Now that conservatives have begun to vent their rage at the slow destruction of America, liberals and democrat politicians and their sycophants are apoplectic over our gumption, our gall, our absolute insolence. They simply cannot fathom the depth of our horror over what this administration is doing and, incredibly try to tell us that what we are seeing is not really happening.
It began with the "Tea Parties", groups of people who were fed up with the spending orgy by a federal government and party who claimed to be aghast at the deficits of the George W. Bush administration. They were labelled as right wing kooks and derided in juvenile diatribes by sophomoric cable pundits. Worse, some major "news outlets" even joined the chorus in jeering the "tea baggers".
Now, however, with the spate of eruptions at town hall meetings across the country, the stakes have been raised. It's bad enough that liberal elites and the State Run Media cannot comprehend the spontaneity made possible by modern technology, they have no choice but to believe that the Republican party is actually busing people to attend town halls on health care. What they forget is that we are new to this game - veritable rookies - and we have not yet graduated to the concept of busing people to events, much less to the polls. Hey, Robert Gibbs, our "astroturf" actually has some dandelions sprouting out of it.
Here's where we start to get into the danger zone, though. The White House is actually asking people to report "fishy emails" to its website. One can only surmise that they are not content with subterfuge, smoke and mirrors in their efforts to bamboozle the American people, they now want us to start "turning one another in", so to speak.
For anyone on the left who cried wolf during the W years over privacy issues and personal liberties, this must be an awfully tumultuous time, provided that anyone on the left has an ounce of intellectual honesty. In the meantime, as conservatives continue to spread their new found "protester wings", there is one area that liberals can still claim as their own.
No matter how badly Obama and his cohorts screw up this country, the one thing you will never see at a Tea Party is an American flag on fire.
I'm going to show you a video from 2003. After you're done watching and listening, I'm going to tell you that you didn't see it and didn't hear it. That is the tactic that Obama and his minions use today. If we let them succeed, it is at our own peril.
Obama has turned to the internet to attack Matt Drudge, using Linda Douglass, White House Office of Health Reform communications director, to try to convince people that what Obama has said - on numerous occasions - is not what he said. Drudge, in return, posted this video on his site - The Drudge Report - purposefully mentioning that it is uncut. So here we go:
He didn't plainly say that he wants universal health care, and he didn't say and repeat that he wants to acheive a single payer system. There must have been wax in your ears, but don't bother running for the syringe and the Q-Tips™ because no matter how times you play that video back, you will mis-hear Obama, every time.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Pragmatism is one of the things that separates the human from the rest of the animal world and yet the only demonstration of pragmatism in evidence by lower animals involves death... at least the death of others. While animals are completely emotionless when leaving the weak behind to die or neglecting imperfect offspring, they will always fight to the last breath to save their own lives. There is much to be said for self preservation in both kingdoms, for even when bleeding profusely and beating back certain death, a human also relies on emotion to bolster the will to survive, considering those they love as they inevitably fade from the world, clutching and clawing until strength fails and breath abates.
The Human kingdom is then divided into two separate camps; those who cherish life beyond their own and those who exhibit an emotionless pragmatism. To be certain, it is not beyond one of either camp to experience less trauma when the person at risk of, or in the throes of, death is not a familiar person, but still, one camp does not actively advocate for the demise of the stranger. And the journals are replete with examples of selfless sacrifices by humans in efforts to save complete strangers from death at the risk of their own lives. Further - and while perhaps less heroic - are the warriors who fight for life as a matter of principle.
Case in point: the Terri Schiavo case of 2005, in which the two camps collided in a bitter contest, with the suffering woman the football. At 41 years of age and in a "persistent vegetative state" for a decade, Ms. Schiavo's estranged husband won the battle to ultimately kill her over the fierce objections of the camp dedicated to life, as well as those of her own parents. The pragmatic ultimately prevailed and Terri Schiavo was killed by starvation and dehydration over the course of several days.
Liberals were emboldened by that heinous "victory" and have now deemed that theirs is an ideology ripe for harvest, allowing their culture of death to emerge from the shadows and bear the light of scrutiny without the need for explanation. While they have vociferously defended their wanton disregard for the lives of the innocent regarding abortion - citing ad nauseam Roe v. Wade - they are now poised to foist upon the American people their own insipid versions of Logan's Run and Soylent Green
To accomplish this feat, liberals have patiently and successfully fomented in the American people a herd mentality, using the guise of "unity" to acquire the acceptance by their subjects of things destined to destroy them. All the while they have applauded as seals at democrat rallies - and Obama speeches in particular - Death has been clapping his famous sickle directly over their shoulders.
The state of Oregon recently offered a shining example of a health care system administered by a government entity, a microcosm of a federal version. It epitomizes the town crier being ignored as a fool, because all that seems to be necessary these days is for Obama to flash his white smile into the camera lens while declaring that he would never lie to us. Still, there is one state bureaucracy that is already telling a citizen that they would be better off dead.
Usually, I make a concerted effort to remain somewhat subdued in my writings, but I find myself increasingly creeping toward the precipice of panic, and the more I dig in my heels, it seems that the pressure exerted on my back increases, just like in my worst nightmares.
Liberals have succeeded in fostering a herd mentality in their disciples - admittedly an odd comparison - and have also incubated an ideology devoid of genuine human compassion, all the while seizing the mantel of benevolence. From a purely tactical point of view, it has been a brilliant campaign, but I still fret over whether we will eventually facilitate our own end...for our own good.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Congress - in their infinite wisdom - has fast-tracked yet another bill through the House, this one for an additional $2 billion to keep the "Cash for Clunkers" program alive. The money is coming from a renewable energy loan guarantee included in the stimulus bill, which was designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It has done neither, and neither will this extra cash, since the cars being scooped up by people seeking the $4,500 are buying existing inventory and not creating demand for manufacturing.
After having woefully calculated the first $1 billion's longevity - it was designed to last until the end of November but was gone after four days - Congress has determined that it would be a good thing to extend the program for another eight days, apparently. And despite the glowing reviews derived from a simple Google search regarding the dealerships' giddiness over the new throngs of buyers, this whole program will, in short time, be revealed as a glimmering rust bucket with a fresh thin coat of shiny spray paint. Here's why.
In order for dealers to receive reimbursement from the government, they must show proof that the clunker has had its engine permanently disabled. This is done by a technician at the dealership donning a protective HAZMAT suit, draining the oil and pouring a sodium silicate solution into the crankcase. The engine is then revved to a high rpm and within seconds, the sodium silicate hardens into a glass-like substance. The engine seizes and the car is worthless.
Now the dealer has to call a salvage yard to remove the vehicle(s) for destruction, but salvage yards do not make money by simply crushing old cars. They make money by selling off the parts - especially the engines, which are the most valuable part - and whatever else they can strip from the car. When it becomes cost prohibitive for salvage yards to accept these clunkers, the dealers are going to have one huge headache.
The other peril of this program is not all that dissimilar from the debacle caused by Fannie and Freddie in the housing market, albeit on a smaller scale. Nonetheless, more people are rushing out to buy new cars when they were driving their old clunkers for a reason; they couldn't afford a new one. The lure of a government subsidy in the amount of $4,500, combined with whatever trade-in value a particular clunker might have, is likely causing people to take on monthly car payments that they may discover they cannot meet a few months from now, especially in this economic climate.
This, of course, leads back to the dealers who will be faced with an increasing "inventory" of worthless cars that salvage yards won't want combined with a fleet of repossessed cars that buyers defaulted on. The current exuberance over the deceiving success of "Cash for Clunkers" will most likely result in an excruciating hangover for the dealers.
And we'll be out an additional $2 billion in about a week.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The old saying, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" may have its merits, but it's an axiom to which I rarely adhere simply because in the world of politics and liberty, saying nothing at all can be deadly. So I will compliment Venezuelan leaders for their blunt frankness regarding their intent to subjugate their citizens. It is a form of honesty which has yet to be practiced by our own leaders who still prefer stealth and feel-good subterfuge in order to achieve the same goal; domination of the people.
While Venezuela's Attorney General, Luisa Ortega, recently said - quite unabashedly - that "freedom of expression must be limited", our own elected officials balk at such forthrightness, opting instead to label those very same intentions as something disguised as beneficial to the people, i.e. the "Fairness Doctrine". There are striking similarities in both approaches, however, as the ideologies of oppressive regimes in Latin America and the Obama administration appear to be on a course of convergence.
For example, the recent ouster of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya saw the U.S. State Department standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Zelaya himself. It seems our own government is intent in helping to restore a socialist Zelaya - who attempted to circumvent the Honduran constitution - to power. Up until now, the United States had been a staunch foe of communist and socialist regimes.
Another stark similarity lies in the double-speak exhibited by Obama and certain majority members of congress, and that of their counterparts in Venezuela. While Attorney General Ortega proposes legislation that would punish owners of radio stations, television channels and newspapers who attempt to cause panic and "disturb social peace", Obama and congressional leaders continually accuse radio and television talk shows of "trying to scare the American people". How long it will take for them to attempt punitive action is anyone's guess.
Just as Obama continues to declare "facts" that contradict the facts from the Congressional Budget Office, for one example, Chavez recently denied - in direct contrast to the words of his own Attorney General Ortega - that he intended to silence his opposition, claiming that his administration fully respects freedom of expression. That sounds vaguely familiar.
As Obama would put it, "we just want to make it fair".