Saturday, July 31, 2010

Who is Oppressing Whom in Gaza?

Organizations like Reuters and the Associated Press are prone to showing the horrors of life in the Gaza Strip through alleged journalism and a plethora of photographs. In the case of Reuters, doctored photographs on occasion, which has been proven. Here in the United States, nightly news shows quiver over the chance to show another Israeli "attack" on the people of Gaza or the effects of the blockade on the huddled masses.

But when a revelation such as has been offered recently of the splendor and prosperity in the region comes to light, those organizations choose to ignore it. This, of course, makes it easy for those who do not wish to believe it to cry foul over the sources that do report on it. On July 20th, I wrote about the subject in Adversaries of Veracity, as did many other blogs like mine, and still it was dismissed or ignored.

Many people who condemned the Flotilla incident of late May are probably unaware of the layout of the region and the circumstances of the situation over there, preferring to get their opinions from the likes of the anti-Semite Helen Thomas. But a quick look at the accompanying map reveals that the Gaza Strip enjoys roughly fifty miles of beachfront property on the Mediterranean Sea.

Recently Egyptian journalist Ashraf Abu al-Houl took a trip to Gaza and was surprised by what he saw, declaring that "in actual terms, Gaza is not under siege". In fact, he said that what he witnessed was a sense of absolute prosperity. "A sense of absolute prosperity prevails, as manifested by the grand resorts along and near Gaza's coast. Further, the site of the merchandise and luxuries filling the Gaza shops amazed me,” he reported.

He was quick to add a caveat, however. From the website LibertysFlame: Concerned that his initial impression of prosperity may have been misleading, “I toured the new resorts, most of which are quite grand, as well as the commercial markets, to verify my hypothesis. The resorts and markets have come to symbolize prosperity, and to prove that the siege is formal or political, not economic,” Al-Houl said.

Gaza's markets are filled with a “plethora of goods,” he wrote. Prices on many items, particularly food, are much lower than they are in Egypt, he said. With goods entering Gaza from both smuggling tunnels to Egypt and humanitarian aid shipments coming in via Israeli crossings, “supply is much greater than demand,” he stated.

The evident prosperity is not enjoyed by all, or even most, of Gaza's residents, according to Al-Houl. The problem is the vast differences in the distribution of wealth. The luxury resorts and wide range of consumer goods are enjoyed by “only a few groups,” he said, primarily those who own smuggling tunnels to Egypt and those who work for international organizations such as the United Nations' UNRWA and who do not include or aid the rest of the population.

Most of the new resorts “are owned by members, or associates, of Hamas,” he reported. “In addition, the Hamas municipalities charge high fees, in Gaza terms, for the use of public beaches,” he added.
According to al-Houl, only about 20% of the population of Gaza enjoys this "absolute prosperity", while 80% are left to languish in the despair of which the rest of the world routinely hears. Is Israel to blame for such a disparity? Where is the condemnation from the world of Hamas and particularly the United Nations workers who bask in luxury while the majority suffer?

According to the Jerusalem Post Palestinians in Gaza have invested twenty million dollars in resorts. The good news is that much of that money has been diverted from investment in the tunnels to Egypt, in part because the Israeli and Egyptian crackdowns have made it too risky to invest there. This is yet another positive development in the region that ABC News will not be broadcasting.

Perhaps al-Houl's caveat was designed to prevent the world from believing that Gaza was anything but a cesspool of suffering, but in my mind, he only succeeded in a stinging indictment of Hamas and the U.N. Of course, places like this are the only ones where you will learn of it. Don't expect any sort of exposé to come blaring out of your television one evening while eating dinner.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 30, 2010

Illegal Alien Bucket Brigade

Since the federal government seems hell bent on preventing its member states from enforcing immigration laws it refuses to enforce itself, I have a suggestion that may just work. It will require an enormous amount of cooperation between the various states in the Union, but I believe that most of them are more than ready for such laborious efforts. Frustrated by the ever-increasingly intrusive powers wielded by the federal government and its encroachment on states' rights, it might be time for the states to exercise their own rights that will be formulated in an unassailable manner.

In Colonial times, Philadelphia had a logistics problem in fighting fires in areas well developed and already having relatively tall buildings for the time. With no pumping system, it was difficult to get sufficient water to douse flames to the site of the fire, so some innovation was required.

In 1736, the Union Fire Company was formed with the assistance of Benjamin Franklin, whose name has sometimes been associated with the organization. It was a volunteer fire department, the first of its kind in Philadelphia, and one of the principles borne of its existence was the "bucket brigade". Each member of the force agreed to furnish for any alarm six leather buckets, at personal expense, to fight the flames.

They would form a line with the buckets with the first man at a well and the last at the fire, and pass buckets full of water toward the fire and the empty ones back toward the well, until the fire was extinguished. The teamwork proved much more effective than men with buckets running to and fro in haphazard fashion. Even common ants know the benefits of cooperation.

To defeat the progressive notion that illegal aliens can be protected by a federal government reticent to enforce its own laws because it's afraid to lose its perceived voting base, the states can form their own version of the bucket brigade and effectively put out the fire.

While the federal government can claim - with efficiency, apparently - that it supersedes the states' authority regarding federal law, the states still have a degree of sovereignty regarding local matters and the laws governing them. For example, states can make it illegal to reside within its boundaries if one is not a legal United States citizen. While this might be perceived as merely shoving one state's problems into neighboring states, that's where the enormous cooperation comes into play.

Rather than the state of Montana hauling a truckload of captured illegal aliens down to the Mexican border repeatedly, they could have an extradition-style agreement with Wyoming to accept custody at its southern border. Wyoming could then transport the prisoners to its southern border with Utah, and so Utah to Arizona. Once in Arizona, that state could either arrange with the Mexican government to accept its citizens, or, they could be remanded to the custody of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department are ICE certified, trained and contracted to aid the federal government in immigration enforcement pursuant to section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; Delegation of Immigration Authority. I somehow doubt that Sheriff Joe or his deputies would mind the responsibility of being the final arbiters of the disposition of criminal invaders in America.

It seems perfectly fitting that such a solution could have been unknowingly conceived by one of America's founding fathers.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Ambiguous Law Enforcement

Well, chalk one up for the Left and their insidious drive to destroy America. Yesterday in Phoenix U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a temporary injunction against parts of SB1070, a law approved by the Arizona legislature to protect the state from waves of illegal aliens entering. The Obama Justice Department (DOJ) did not see it that way, however, and sued Arizona to block the law.

Claiming that the law would undermine the federal government's efforts to enforce immigration policy, the DOJ convinced Bolton that the law was unconstitutional. On its face, it sounds like a reasonable argument, but one must look deeper to learn that it is an exercise in hypocrisy of the highest order.

For starters Arizona - under veritable siege along its border with Mexico - instituted its own law precisely because the federal government was derelict in its duty to protect the state from foreign invasions. So for the federal government to sue due to alleged obstruction on Arizona's part is simply ludicrous. What's worse is that Washington, having refused to enforce its own laws, has now insisted that Arizona cease and decist from doing so either.

Perhaps more confounding is the existence of section 287(g) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act; Delegation of Immigration Authority. Effective in September of 1996, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) later added section 287(g) in June of 2007. From the website

This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
Many of those contracted and trained were officers in the police forces of Arizona. It wasn't until Obama became president that the supervision of those officers under ICE ceased. One must wonder why, but also question the wisdom of that cessation and the subsequent actions to halt their activities to protect Americans.

An even better question would involve the federal government and its deliberate ignorance of the more obstructive policies of sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with the federal immigration laws, thereby stymieing enforcement, an infraction far worse than what may be considered a form of usurpation by SB1070 yet one that has not garnered a hint of disapproval under Obama, much less a taxpayer-funded lawsuit.

There are currently one hundred and forty-three sanctuary cities across the United States, cities that refuse to question the legality of potential violators of federal immigration law and resist the obligation to turn in those they know are in violation of such. That is 143 cities aiding and abetting criminal elements amongst us with impunity. Yet Arizona gets hauled into court.

In summary, the United States of America has laws that prohibit unlawful entry, but now refuses to criminalize criminal behavior. It punishes those who take up the mantel of justice and rewards those who ignore it through blatant inattentiveness, and chastises legal citizens for protesting against such foolhardiness.

By the time this is all sorted out, most likely in a final showdown before the Supreme Court, it becomes increasingly likely that there will be another shameful slap down at next year's State of the Union address by the president, provided the Justices show up then.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 26, 2010

Minority Rule and the Domestic Blitzkrieg

Sometimes the Yiddish word "chutzpah" falls far from adequacy in describing the collective attitude of our elected "leaders". While the Democrats have been in control of Congress for the past four years, their approval rating among the people - those they serve, remember? - has continued to plummet, reaching perhaps the lowest levels attainable solely due to sympathy by a handful of citizens who deliberately resist piling on and thus buck the trend.

Now, since the election of Barack Obama and the resulting fast-track toward the agenda this triad has embraced, the minute percentage of the population of the United States that actually steers our vehicle has virtually locked the doors and accelerated to a place we clearly indicated we did not want to go.

As we the people struggle to gain control of the console and right the course, Congress slaps us back into the back seat and swerves all over the road to keep us off balance. And they have a rotating cast of co-pilots to aid toward that end.

Currently it is Al Franken, who warns the few remaining listeners that if we ever gain the front seat, we will crash the car. Ironically, it is either blind luck that we haven't already slammed into a brick wall, or the prospect that Obama has not yet attained full speed, meaning little more than we haven't yet reached the wall.

Truth be told, however, we are effectively captives in a car-jacked vehicle careening out of control. The Left may have a majority in Congress, but a majority only in a very small percentage of our population. Think of it as being a family of four at the mercy of one thug who stole the car with us in it. 535 people hold the fate of 330 million, and that small band is thumbing their noses at the rest of us daily. The only reason, by the way, is because they have the figurative guns, an irony I find irresistible.

Even more ironic is that Franken recently spoke in Nevada to a group of Liberal bloggers, The Netroots Nation, where he said:

“If Republicans take back Congress they’ll implement a truly dangerous agenda.”
Apparently the majority party in Congress only fears Conservative bloggers, which would explain their desire to shut down the Internet on the whims of the President. Funny how they shrieked about liberty when a Republican was president. What is not funny is that people in Congress consider a return to the fundamental principles of our nation - the very principles that propelled us to excellence - constitute a "dangerous agenda".

When politicians cavalierly express a fear of the preservation of our Constitution and the means by which we originally achieved greatness, ordinary people should be alarmed, and they are. Sadly, such patriots are now cast as heretics, the enemies of the State, and it is the Ruling Class pointing the finger of damnation.

There is a small window of opportunity - one that is rapidly closing as we race toward it - to redefine the meaning of being a free American at the ballot box, and those who seek to facilitate the ultimate demise of America as we know it are well aware of that race.

I know many of you who were disenchanted with the Bush/Cheney Era contributed to the Congressional coup in 2006 and the final culmination of the Triad in 2008, but I also know that many of those have already come to regret that impulse purchase. Please don't allow that bad taste to keep you from the store to make the exchange. For now, America still accepts returns without a receipt.

Be mindful, however, of that brief window. Do not allow America to mimic a candle in the wind.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Public Servants, We the People and All That Jazz

As the mid term election season draws ever closer, it's important to remember who we elect to represent us. The Ruling Class has clearly forgotten for whom they work...

First up, that rascally Charlie Rangel:

Next, we have an agitated and arrogant Al Franken. Imagine telling your boss to shut up?

How about Congressman Bob "Who Are You" Etheridge?

Or Pete Stark, who thinks his constituents are beneath him?

Oh yeah, the common thread in all of this? All of these guys are Democrats.
Remember in November.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 23, 2010

Same As It Ever Was

Some silliness at Obama's expense:

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Sure Signs of Desperation: Dems Begin Chewing Off Limbs

It's been public knowledge for about a year that Charles Rangel had multiple and serious ethics issues, yet the Democrats in control - most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi - chose to ignore those allegations. Rangel stepped aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, but he continues to serve as a member nonetheless.

Suddenly it has been announced by the House ethics committee that a Congressional investigative committee has decided to charge Rangel with multiple, albeit unspecified, violations. This, on the heels of the shelving of the infamous and unpopular "Cap & Trade" bill, can only mean that Democrats have witnessed their own political mortality and are running scared. Very scared.

So scared, it seems, that the temporary storage of a prized piece of legislation is not enough to placate the rank and file membership. It has left them feeling trapped, and they have taken on the traits of the trapped animal; they are gnawing off expendable appendages in order to survive. The problem is, they are also becoming as dangerous as a wounded animal.

Having already hinted at the possibility of enacting nothing-to-lose laws in a potential lame-duck session, Congress - in the likely event of having the largest class of former members in history - could dust off the Cap & Trade bill just in time for Christmas and ruin the holidays for us all. Don't think they could be so vindictive? Think again, you haven't been paying much attention.

The shelving of that bill is nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to not only curry favor with the majority of the electorate, but a lame attempt to sour the people on the Republicans by blaming them for global warming and the obstruction of the alleged cure. Despite their defiant actions and smug righteousness, the Democrats are well aware of their minority status outside the Chambers.

One must wonder who else is expendable as November rapidly approaches from the horizon, but also how vigorously Congress will pursue these charges. Odds are that this wham-bam Congress will suddenly slow to a deliberative crawl in the Rangel matter claiming that the seriousness of the situation requires care and diligence. Would that they had been so slow on the trigger of Health Care, an infliction on the nation with far greater magnitude than the loss of one corrupt career politician.

The show should be amusing to watch anyway, particular for the kid in us all that enjoyed frying ants with a magnifying glass so many years ago.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Silently Into the Dark Night

Thank God for the Tea Party movement, for without it, there would be no hope to which to cling. As I watch my fellow citizens blithely ignore the treachery slowly creeping in on them - and witness the complicit silence of the media - I ache with a sadness almost too great to bear.

For as much as the word "sheep" is used as a pejorative, it is the most apt in its description of our people today. There is an old narrative describing how to trap wild hogs that - while not related to sheep - aptly depicts the cage being built around us now.

A farmer noticed a wild hog in the woods and decided to trap it. He set out some food every day for a week, and each day the hog came to eat. The next week, the farmer built a single section of fence, and set the food a short distance from it. The hog returned to eat, unconcerned by the new structure as it seemed to pose no threat.

The second week, the farmer erected the second section of fence, and the hog returned each day undeterred by the addition. The food was still plentiful and there were no restrictions on the hog's movements. He could still leave when sated and return when hungry again. And so it went until the last section of fence was ready to be placed.

Still oblivious to the peril of the free and abundant food supply, the hog approached his last meal as a wild animal. Once he indulged in his grateful consumption, the farmer placed the final section that would forever erase the freedom of the hog, and facilitate his ultimate demise.

Call us what you will, be it sheep or hog. We are mindlessly marching toward our doom, completely unaware of the hazards fluttering around us like so many fireflies on a Summer evening, or that a trap is being constructed on the perimeter of our jovial picnic site. For most of our countrymen, we are experiencing a brief lull in the bounties to which we've become numbly accustomed, and a free meal is no cause for alarm.

The problem is, it's so much more than a free meal that Obama offers, but more a sampling of a Utopia he can never deliver without a heavy cost. It is akin to the drug pusher who gives his targets free drugs until they're hooked, and then setting a high price to satisfy the addiction. Those victims then have little hope at satiation short of stealing to maintain the supply or receiving an intervention that saves them from the deadly tug of addiction altogether.

The question then becomes: can the Tea Party Movement maintain not only the numerical ranks, but the support necessary to successfully implement an intervention on such a grand scale? Taking a random, single family, torn by such a scenario, as a microcosm of our present government structure, the prospects seem bleak. Usually, both parents need to be on board with the procedure to ensure its success.

With the mother represented by the Democrats, it would be easy to assume that they would have reservations about such drastic measures. The father, or the Republicans, would naturally be all for restoring the child to his former, reasonable self. Immediately, we see a conflict which could quite possibly derail the entire process.

Ultimately, it may come down to a direct conflict between the pusher and the intervener, while mom and dad are relegated to the sidelines. Republicans and Democrats in Congress haven't been all that different for years anyway, save for the approaches each decide upon to rule the masses. If the Counselor can smite the pusher, we have a prayer at salvation.

The problematic kid also needs to express a desire to be saved. Otherwise, all is lost.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Adversaries of Veracity

All photos from Please visit and see them all.

While the world of journalism insists that their readers must know every detail of the Lindsay Lohan trial, they seem to dismiss important and relevant news. Sadly, their liberal stripes peek from beneath the heavy makeup only when they "report news" that can be construed as detrimental to their political foes.

The media climbed all over Israel in the wake of the June flotilla disaster, blaming Israeli commandos for shooting armed ambushers engaged in attacks on them when they tried to board one of the ships. Stories followed stories depicting the flotilla as a desperate attempt by benevolent celebrities and concerned Turkish nationals to get precious necessities to the starving and deprived residents of Gaza. All but ignored were the numerous weapons these crusaders had prepared for their assault on the Israelis.

Prodded by biased world media reports of the alleged humanitarianism of the flotilla, people were righteously outraged. How could the Israelis maintain such a tight blockade on Gaza when the people were suffering as a result? While they grudgingly acknowledged that Israel allowed "some medicines" in, they portrayed the blockade as an injustice on the grandest scale.

Visions of malnourished and sick children were conjured, permeating the consciousness of Liberal enclaves around the world. Pictures of destitution were imagined, all at the hands of the Israelis who were thus pressured to lift their evil blockade and allow the seeds of survival to be distributed to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

For their part, Israel meekly countered that they were merely trying to ensure that Hamas did not receive materials that could be used for the construction of more rockets to be fired into her territory by Hamas. It did not matter, the Turks and those sympathetic Liberals who accompanied them felt the need to run the blockade and help those poor people. Were they purposefully misinformed or part of a deliberate, more nefarious cause?

How many knew of the life of splendor some lead in Gaza? I certainly didn't. I certainly considered that the region was a miserable place to exist, but still faulted Hamas for those conditions. I had no idea that this was even possible. Below is a picture of a new shopping mall that opened in Gaza on July 17th, a mere three days ago.

The photo at the beginning of this article is part of the Tom Gross site and is accompanied by an interesting caption:

Above: A Palestinian newspaper photo (May 18, 2010) shows Gazan children in the newly built Olympic-sized swimming pool which opened earlier in May 2010, despite continuing claims by some Western journalists and NGOs that there are no building materials and a severe shortage of water in Gaza.

And then there are the claims that Israel is choking off the food supply of the "victims" in Gaza. For this reason, Iran's Revolutionary Guard was preparing their own blockade-running mission. Despite the prospect of what such an attempt would have sparked, i.e., all out war within the region, Western journalists and Liberal observers hoped for just that. Feeding those people was just that important. Well, some more pictures from within Gaza:

How about the kids?

I am astounded that - even with the proliferation of the blogosphere in this modern age - this has not been more widely known. As I indicated, I also thought that the Gaza Strip was a desolate, cheerless environment. There are places right here in the United States that look less desirable as a habitat than Gaza.

And yet, Diane Sawyer or 60 Minutes have no interest in this. One must question why.

Lastly, I will leave you with this video titled "Daily Life in Gaza". Be prepared, it is quite a shock. Those with heart valve issues should strongly consider whether to watch:

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Just for the Fun of It

Sometimes, a break from the maddening world of politics is desperately needed. Enjoy!

Special h/t to AK_ID

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 11, 2010

They Said It Didn't Happen

In 1932 Josef Stalin, angered at Ukraine's resistance to collectivized agriculture, sent 25,000 militant party members to the region to force collectivization on 10 million Ukrainian peasants. Recalcitrant farmers were selectively executed, but Stalin quickly realized that such a method worked too slowly on such a large number of people.

Mass starvation would be his ultimate choice of genocide, and all seed stocks, grain, and farm animals were confiscated from Ukraine's farms. Stalin had Red Army troops seal off the borders to Ukraine and closed off rail lines. Nothing went in and nothing came out. It was just a matter of time until people starved to death.

Struggling for survival, people eventually ate pets, their boots, tree bark and roots, and in some cases, ate infant children. Stalin also sent Lazar Kaganovitch to shoot 10,000 Ukrainians per week. All tolled, the death count was 10 million people, 3 million of them children, and most of them from starvation instead of bullets.

At the time this was happening there was a young man named Gareth Jones, a recent alumnus from Cambridge University, who travelled extensively in the former Soviet Republic, and spent time in Ukraine. He reported on what he witnessed and was excoriated for it, called a liar by Walter Duranty of The New York Times. Duranty, the 1932 Pulitzer Prize winner, used his considerable credentials to discredit the truth of what Jones reported.


The following month in early March 1933, after an 'off-limits' walking tour of the Soviet Ukraine, Gareth, a young man of just 27 years, exposed to the world the terrible famine-genocide that had befallen the Soviet Union and gave reasons for this tragic state of events. It was in the same week that Malcolm Muggeridge had three unsigned famine articles in the Manchester Guardian published, though at the time, due to the more reported Jewish problems in Germany , they went almost unnoticed. Gareth's story however, broke world-wide with much credence (by virtue of his position with Lloyd George) from a Berlin press interview on the 29th March 1933, and was published in the USA as 'exclusives' on the same day by Pulitzer prize winners; H. R Knickerbocker (1931) and Edgar Adsel Mowrer (1933)..

Even though Gareth revealed the truth, he was publicly denounced as a liar by several Moscow resident Western journalists, including The New York Times' and incumbent 1932 Pulitzer Prize Winner, Walter Duranty. In 1937, Eugene Lyons, a Moscow based correspondent, who repudiated Gareth four years earlier, was apologetic for his actions in his book Assignment in Utopia.
There were 10 million poor peasants being slowly starved to death - if they were not the "lucky" ones to be shot - and the New York Times deliberately hid the truth, and refuse to this day to even apologize even as they still hail Duranty as some sort of hero figure. And the world is silent. What does that say?

At least Eugene Lyons eventually expressed regret and acknowledged his misdeeds. The New York Times remains defiant and enjoys a reputation as a beacon of truth. If this story were not so maddening, I'd laugh.

And a wonderful article in American Thinker by the son of a survivor of the Holodomor, Vladimir Steblina:
Crimes of the NY Times

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Enemies Amongst Us

Malik Shabazz loves Osama bin Laden. He refers to this murderous cretin as "brother" and "Mr. bin Laden".

Also, take note that the New Black Party leader complains of his right to free speech, and then beseeches his enemies to "shut your mouth". This video is 7½ years old. How is it we've never heard about this on CNN or read about it in the New York Times?

Spread this one around, especially in light of the new credibility these traitors seem to have in our society today.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The Final Frontier Between Obama's Ears

Perhaps President Obama has spent more time with one of his biggest fans than we have been led to believe. It may go a long way in explaining the strange betrayal of his alleged academic acumen to even his harshest critics who - at least until recently - begrudgingly acknowledged his advertised brilliance, albeit on faith alone, since no actual credentials were ever offered to confirm the belief. He spoke well when prompted, but many learned as early as the campaign trail that he was a dismal orator when circumstances dictated extemporaneous performances.

Since his election Obama has demonstrated even less intellect in policy making and many more people are now - thankfully - wondering what they have wrought. The recent revelation that Obama's mission for his new National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Chief Charles Bolden involves less about space exploration and more on appeasing radical Islam makes one wonder if the President has visited Louis Farrakhan's "Mother Wheel in the Sky" a time or two.

Of course, since Obama has slashed the NASA budget and scrapped much of the space exploration that was planned, it stands to reason that one, he has found a mission for Bolden that is far less expensive and two, he'll no longer have a ride to Farrakhan's fantasy land.

Speaking in June at the American University in Cairo, in an interview with Al Jazeera, Bolden said that Obama wanted him to "help [Muslims] feel good about their historic contribution to science...". The quote in its entirety:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering."
Out of forty-four presidents in America's history, only a handful have been elected President of the United States directly from the Senate. None of those even come close to the way Obama - with the thinnest of resumes and least time in politics - was whisked into office. And certainly, not even Jimmy Carter could compete with Obama for level of ineptitude.

For a man who was sold to the American electorate as a scholar, it has become painfully obvious - to most, at least - that they have been the victims of false advertising. Perhaps the rest will come around when Obama puts the Treasury Secretary in charge of restoring the self esteem of oil-soaked egrets in the Gulf region. In the meantime, someone needs to be charged with seeking out intelligence in the vacuous expanse of Obama's brain.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 5, 2010

Remember in November

I got this from a site I Stumbled upon, and I do not know who the author is, but whoever it may be, my hat is officially tipped.

Political Hell

A powerful senator dies after a prolonged illness. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to Heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the guy.

"Well, I'd like to but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in Hell and one in Heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven," says the senator.

"I'm sorry but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him, everyone is very happy and in evening attire. They run to greet him, hug him, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. Also present is the Devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on Heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

"Now it's time to visit Heaven."

So 24 hours pass with the head of state joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well then, you've spent a day in Hell and another in Heaven. Now choose your eternity."

He reflects for a minute, then the senator answers, "Well, I would never have said it, I mean Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in Hell."

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to Hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags. The Devil comes over to him and lays his arm on his neck. "I don't understand," stammers the senator."Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and club and we ate lobster and caviar and danced and had a great time. Now all there is, is a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.

The Devil looks at him, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning! Today you voted for us! The election is over."

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Of Malfeasance and Rigid Regulations

In March of 2009 the Red River in Fargo, North Dakota threatened to wipe out the town, but the people were not about to be defeated. Working together as a team, they began filling sandbags and shoring up the river dikes and eventually proved victorious over the cresting river, saving their town. As they worked feverishly, filling and placing the sandbags, they were temporarily incautious about safety.

One must wonder what would have become of Fargo had the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) been on site to demand safe labor practices, such as "team lifting" and lumbar belts to prevent back injuries. Fortunately, there was no political opportunity in "fly-over" country, and the Obama administration ignored the entire situation.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is another matter entirely, however, and we are witnessing the devastating effects of rigid government regulations in a time of dire emergency. Now over seventy days into the spill, the federal government has proved to be more of a hindrance than a help. Speculations swirl as to the genuine cause of such seeming ineptitude; or malice.

Perhaps the most egregious example of idiocy is the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency will not relax the regulation - even temporarily - that limits the amount of oil in discharged water to 15 parts per million. The multitude of skimmers available to mitigate some of the damage are capable of gathering sea water, separating the oil from it and discharging the water back into the sea, but they are prevented from doing so because the discharged water will have more than 15 PPM.

In June, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal commissioned a fleet of sixteen barges with vacuum pumps to suck crude oil from the Gulf waters. They were surprisingly effective, until the Coast Guard shut them down for 24 hours. The reason? So the Coast Guard could ensure that the barges carried the proper amount of fire extinguishers and life vests.

As the oil threatens the entire ecosystem of the region, Jindal begged for berms to be dredged in the Gulf to prevent the oil from reaching the shores, where it will cause even more damage. No, said the federal government, because dredging may "disturb" the ecosystem. Huh?

Then there is the incredible excuse for refusing offers of foreign help from people like the Dutch who have ships that would have been an enormous help in cleaning up the spill. Three days after the explosion that triggered this nightmare, the Dutch offered ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, capable of processing 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

The Obama administration and BP politely declined. Obama did not want to allow foreign ships to operate in U.S. waters because of the Jones Act, implemented in the 1920's to protect organized labor. Two days after Hurricane Katrina, President Bush temporarily suspended the Jones Act, but Obama still refuses. And yet, the media still crucifies the Bush response while virtually ignoring Obama's glaring incompetence.

Finally, there is the fact that Obama isn't even using all of our own resources to speed the clean up. The United States has at its disposal 2000 skimmer ships, only 20% of which have been sent to the Gulf. 400 skimmers have been deployed in the Gulf, while the remaining 1600 have been retained elsewhere in case of other spills. Now, finally, the Coast Guard and the EPA have relented and will allow the other ships to come, some 70 days late.

Does this sound like the administration has "done everything" in their power? It sounds more like the sacrificing of a vast portion of the country to gain political leverage by Obama. If this isn't criminal, I don't know what is.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 2, 2010

Hollow Promises and Irony

Perhaps worse than the outright lies we've been told by the Democrats since they regained control of Congress in 2006 - and accelerated under the completion of the triad with the election of Obama - is the way these cretins shamelessly co-opt positions they once derided to further their heinous agenda. And they do it with virtually no cognizance that the people know they are lying. They truly believe that they are fooling us, and for good reason.

The media, which now resembles that of countries like Venezuela, has crawled under the sheets of the Democrats like prostitutes do in cheap motels. The only difference is that prostitutes - many of them, anyway - hate their bed-mates, while the media does what they do out of love. An institution that was born to remain impartial has finally seen their ultimate goals come to fruition, and they are ecstatic. So much so that they blatantly disregard glaring hypocrisies like the one I am about to relate.

Still insisting to this day that the Ronald Reagan economic policies were a failure, Democrats ridicule the theory of "trickle-down economics". Just yesterday, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that the policy was perhaps the best job creator one could mention. The critical caveat is that - while she will still giggle uncontrollably if told that Reagan was right - her philosophy is that it's good only if Government controls the rate of the trickle.

When Reagan dropped the tax rates it is indisputable that he increased the revenue stream to federal coffers despite taking less from each individual. It’s the simple principle that the more money people keep, the more they have to stimulate the economy. What the Democrats hated was the notion that more money in the hands of the wealthy created jobs which benefited everyone, with the exception of the politicians. It took control away from the bureaucrats and placed it with the proper owners; the people.

Pelosi now says that unemployment benefits give people who do not work money which they then spend, which causes economic growth. The problem is, it produces nothing. The recipients merely recycle the cash they receive for not producing. See her idiotic comments - reminiscent of the "we have to pass the [health care] bill to find out what's in it" - below:

The current trend is also towards a nation where fewer people in the private sector have meaningful jobs manufacturing consumable goods and generating income as opposed to more public sector jobs whose workers rely on tax receipts for payroll. But if they are not creating capital or profits, they do not contribute to the economic growth, they merely recycle it.

What happens when the producers are outnumbered by the recyclers? Or when the producers become recyclers themselves through extended unemployment benefits? And when the few productive jobs left are commandeered by the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, and more people get laid off due to increased wages for the few lucky ones with "seniority", we will have more people seeking benefits from Uncle Sam.

Am I one of the few people in this country who sees what is being done here? Are bloggers the last vestige of truth in America? If that is true, the Obama "kill switch" for the Internet will be the end.

People it is imperative to get the incumbents responsible for this travesty out of office this fall before we have no voice left. For anyone who screamed about the alleged civil liberties intrusions of the Bush Administration, I implore you to wake up before it's too late, and no one hears your screams tomorrow.

Sphere: Related Content