Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A Facebook Discussion

"If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from
within or without, we must try to extinguish it."
~ Thomas Jefferson

My Liberal Doctor nephew and I have been having an interesting discussion on Facebook lately. I thought I'd share it with my two readers, and invite comment:

It started when my nephew placed the following as his Facebook status:
"'They’re paying all these boats to run around like headless chickens,' [U.S. Rep. Gene] Taylor said, as reporters gathered to hear his assessment of the Sound....'I’m having a Katrina flashback. I haven’t seen this much stupidity, wasted effort, money and wasted resources, since then.'”

And then, he added this link.

I replied, "Here's one reason nobody's doing anything:", and then, I added the link to the following video:

To which he replied, "Allow me to retort:" and then added two links, both of which made the same basic point: Here, and here.

I, in turn, copied and pasted a portion of his first link, thusly:

"A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration"

And, made the following comment:

"50 are under consideration? What are we waiting for? I'll tell you what we're waiting for: Obama and Emanuel are still considering how they are going to use this crisis to their own advantage."

I then added a link to this article, which I had linked to in my last blogpost.

To which he reiterated the point he made with the last two links by posting yet another link which said basically the same thing as the two previous links.

Then, I wrote back:
"Why would paying for foreign help be a problem for the biggest tax and spend President in our history? He is willing to send billions of tax payers money to big wall street corporations to stave off bankruptcy, only to see them waste the money on lavish parties and huge bonuses for their executives, yet he hesitates to pay a few million to help clean up the gulf?

Which is more important to the United States? Padding the pockets of Wall Street lobbyists and their employers, or saving the environment? It seems Obama has already provided the answer to that question.

And while we're on the subject, why is he wasting time pointing fingers instead of looking for ways to stop the leak?"

To which he replied (with an apparent growing frustration at my flawless logic):

"Wait, you're mad because the president was doing something besides looking for ways to stop the oil leak? This is the president and administration that enrages you when they get involved in crises in the healthcare industry, the auto industry, Wall Street, consumer protection, etc., but now their so-called lack of involvement in plugging an oil leak is your gripe of the week? Your politics are, um, complex. Definitely over my head, at any rate."

The last word (so far) was delivered by me, as I respectfully replied:

"I'm not mad. I'd say perplexed is a more appropriate word. And, I would never even imply that anything I say is over your head. I have too much respect for your intellect than that. After all, you ARE in my family. :-) Nevertheless, let me make it simple for you:

I am opposed to the government intervening in the free market system. Despite what Obama says, no company is "too big to fail". Nor would a company's failure mean the end of business in America. If they are so irresponsible that they can't stay afloat using sound business practices supposedly learned in their MBA programs, they deserve to fail. When one business fails, another springs up to take it's place. That's how the free market is intended to work. Ginormous corporations clinging to the brink of failure is not a crisis. Neither is healthcare or the environment.

Obama knows this. Otherwise, his response to these so-called crisis would not take effect sometime in the next ten years or so. He would initiate them immediately.

However, tons of highly toxic crude oil spilling out into the gulf of Mexico is an immediate crisis which calls for immediate measures.

A true leader would look to stop the bleeding and worry about who's at fault and who's ass to kick once the initial problem is solved. There is plenty of time to punish the guilty after the leak is stopped. (and, at this point, I resorted to one of Dan T's tactics) Surely you agree with that?"

Update: He did at least agree with me that punishing the guilty can wait until the problem is solved. See? Some Liberals have some common sense!

I'm proud to be his uncle!

Friday, June 25, 2010

A Crisis Of Competence

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18

Normally, I don't copy and paste articles into my blog form. I even put that in my blogger profile. I usually would rather offer my own thoughts, however disjointed and illogical they may be, and let the chips fall where they may.

That said, this article nailed Obama more accurately than anything I've ever read. Andrew Cline is dead on in his assessment of Barack Hussein Obama.

So, with the readers indulgence, here's a teaser for you offered in the hope it will entice you to read further:

"Patience, Obama repeatedly said. Patience. Fixing the enormous mistakes of the Bush years would take time. There would be no quick fix. Don't look for immediate results, keep gazing into the horizon. Here, I'll show you how, just tilt your head this way, slightly squint your eyes… there, now hold that position for the next three years.

Then, without warning, a pocket of methane gas exploded on an oil rig roughly 50 miles offshore. Suddenly we had a crisis that demanded a real-time solution, not a promise of rewards to be reaped after the next election."

I couldn't say it any better.

Cross posted at American Descent

Monday, June 21, 2010

Presidential Fail

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers

This is no joke. Obama has admitted to refusing to secure our borders.

These are the words to the oath of office that every president-elect is required to repeat upon his inauguration:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The number one job of the President of the United States of America is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. If the President of the United States of America refuses to defend the people of the United States, whom the Constitution was written to protect, shouldn't he be impeached, and removed from office?

If evidence is presented to the American people that the President of the United States is refusing to secure our borders for the sake of some pet legislation, shouldn't his impeachment and subsequent removal from office be demanded by the American people?

Is Barack Hussein Obama fit to be President of the United States?

In my opinion, he is not only unfit to hold the office of President of the United States of America, he should be tried for treason.

Cross posted at American Descent

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Father's Day Music

“It is easier for a father to have children than for children to have a real father.” - Pope John XXII

There haven't been enough songs about fathers, considering the importance of fathers in our lives. But, here are three of them.

My father died in 1990, just a month before his 73rd birthday. He was a great man. I only hope I can someday measure up to him.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

A Great Quote

"No. Just...I'm OK." ~ Alvin Greene

Ann Coulter, on South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee, Alvin Greene:

"Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)"

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Everything In Our Power

"We're going to do everything in our power to protect our natural resources, compensate those who have been harmed, rebuild what has been damaged and help this region persevere like it has done so many times before." - Barack Hussein Obama

Two months after the BP Deep Horizon oil disaster, the Obama administration is no closer to solving the problem than it was the day after.

And yet, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power."

Really? Everything?

Well, I suppose he's done everything if talk is everything.

To be fair, here's what Obama has done:


"We're going to do everything in our power".

Make speeches. "We're going to do everything in our power".

Visit the coast four times.

"We're going to do everything in our power".

Call up 17,500 National Guard troops (he says).

Only 1600 of them are actually on the job so far. And, as Mark Levin points out, those 1600 can't work 24/7. So, there may be as many as 5-600 working the gulf coastline at any given time.

Here's a pop quiz for you:

How many miles long is the Gulf of Mexico's coastline?

But, "We're going to do everything in our power".

Here. Read this article.

Don't have the time or inclination to read the article? Well, here's an excerpt or two:
"According to Foreign Policy, thirteen entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance within about two weeks of the Horizon rig explosion. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.

The U.S. response - Thank you, but no thank you, we've got it."

What did Obama say? Oh, yes: "We're going to do everything in our power".

"Separately, a Dutch news site 'De Standaard' also reported Belgian and Dutch dredgers have technology in-house to fight the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but the Act Jones forbids them to work in the U.S."

What is the Jones Act? Simply put, the Jones act is a little piece of legislation enacted in 1920 which requires that "all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents." (source)

The Jones act can be waived in cases of national emergency. And, it has been in the past.

But, Obama hasn't waived the Jones Act.

But, Obama says, "We're going to do everything in our power".

This is more than Obama's Katrina.

This is Obama's Waterloo.

Cross posted at American Descent.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Not Natural. Not Normal.

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

In a thread at Marshall Art's blog, a post regarding the endangered "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in America's military, the comments drifted to the usual discussion over whether homosexuality and the oxy-moronic "gay" marriage is normal.

Before I get into my usual rant, I want to state my personal view on both gays in the military and gay marriage:

Don't ask, don't tell:

If, somehow, some homosexual in the military has managed to conceal his deviancy up until now, I have no objection to him/her continuing to serve. As long as none of his/her fellow soldiers know, keep it that way or leave. If, however, he/she has been outed, either by self-outing or by discovery of his peers, he/she should be discharged.

When a homosexual is outed, the other soldiers become self conscious, and will likely imagine they are being leered at, or they may possibly mistake some innocent friendliness as being an unwanted attempt at seduction. It would be an enormous distraction, and effect the cohesiveness of the unit. And that, in time of war, could cost lives.

Gay Marriage:

Personally, I don't care if two homosexuals want to get married to each other.

But don't expect me to give them wedding gifts, and they'd better not expect congratulations from me. I think homosexuality is disgusting. I don't want to know about their perversion.

Other than that, they can swish their tail feathers anywhere they want. As long as they leave me out of it, I really don't care.

Now. On to my rant:

A few years ago, an article was published in the New York Slimes, which reported scientists had genetically altered a female fruit fly by injecting it with a male gene. It naturally did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

From this, the scientists drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic.

The writer of the article did not mention if they had tried the same experiment with male fruit flies. The article also did not mention whether they had tried the same experiment with multiple fruit flies, or with other animals.

I suppose the New York Slimes assumed we would all just believe them, because they have been so trustworthy in the past. (sarcasm)

I can't link to it, because to do so, I would have to subscribe to the New York Slimes online, and I won't waste good money on that treasonous, lying, piece of filth.

But the research was fatally flawed. Allow me to explain why.

In the first place, they started out all wrong. Instead of attempting to find a reason why the hypothesis isn't true, which is the scientifically accepted method of testing a hypothesis, they set out to prove genetic homosexuality is true. When you do this, you are starting out prepared to dismiss any evidence that conflicts with your initial hypothesis, other than which is absolutely undeniable.

Next, frankly, the conclusion reached by these scientists simply doesn't make sense.

They said homosexuality must be genetic because fruit flies injected with the opposite sex gene responded as if they were homosexual.

But, remember. They injected the gene into the fly.

The fly's genetic make-up had to be altered for it to behave in a manner opposite of it's true nature.

The gene was not already present.

It is never present in nature.

The fruit fly does only what fruit flies do. They are born, they eat, they mate. And then, they die. That's all.

Fruit flies do not and cannot choose their sexual orientation. At least, not without outside influences.

Needless to say, fruit flies are not human.

Human beings are the only creatures on this earth who have the capacity of abstract reasoning. They are also the only creatures on earth who choose their sexual preferences.

Human beings are the only creatures who can choose to defy nature.

And, homosexual human beings defy nature.

They choose to be deviant. They choose to defy nature. They choose to deny their own sexuality.


The reasons are legion.

I believe it starts with a lack of self esteem.

In the last several years, homosexuality has become fashionable. Because of the efforts of homosexual activists, many people who otherwise wouldn't have considered being homosexual have "joined the movement", so to speak. Joining this club satisfies the need to belong.

I suspect many of the members of this particular club are not really homosexual at all, but they want to belong to some group so badly, they assume the stereotypical mannerisms that all people, straight or gay, easily recognize. Probably all of them, if they continue to affect the mannerisms of what they consider to be "gay", eventually engage in some sort of homosexual activity. Once they go that far, their self esteem reaches an all time low, and the homosexual lifestyle claims another victim.

I personally know a homosexual young man who tries so very hard to convince everyone around him that he is gay, I have become convinced he is not really gay at all.

He simply tries too hard.

If it were natural and normal to be homosexual, why would one try so hard to act that way?

If it's natural and normal, just be homosexual. Be yourself. Stop trying to prove your "gayness" to everyone else. Normal people only find that behavior disgusting, and don't want to know.

Even with the strong pull of inclusiveness mentioned above, I believe very few people enter the homosexual lifestyle in this manner.

For the most part, those who eventually choose an aberrant lifestyle do so because of some childhood trauma or influence, from extreme circumstances such as rape and molestation, to merely a lack of a strong role model in the child's home.

Homosexual enablers will often say something like, "Homosexuals are disdained and hated and treated badly. Why would they choose to be discriminated against if it's so much easier to be heterosexual?"

Well, the answer to that question is this: There are people who are affected with some sort of medical or neurological disorder. They crave attention.

Read up on Munchhausen's syndrome.

As I mentioned, in spite of what certain people, such as Dan T. , Geoffrey, and scores of others, will say, homosexuality never occurs in nature. It requires some alteration by an outside force, such as the injection of an unnatural gene, as we've seen, or a traumatic influence (or semi-traumatic. It's a relative term) from some sort of outside entity.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever turns you on. I don't really care. I won't hate you for that. I might dislike you for other reasons, but not your choice of sexual preferences.

But, don't flaunt your perversion in front of me, please. And, stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way.

You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas or outside influences instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

And, if you are normal and pretend you believe they are, too, despite what common sense tells you, keep it to yourself. You aren't convincing anyone.

Cross posted at American Descent.

Friday, June 04, 2010

The Wussification Of America

"Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death." ~James F. Byrnes

Driving home for lunch a few days ago, in a hurry, I found myself driving behind an SUV that was evidently being driven by someone who thought their vehicle was made of glass. The driver came to almost a complete stop before crossing a railroad track, and then rolled across at approximately 1/2 mile an hour.

OK. I admit that in my frustration, I may have overreacted somewhat, because shouting, "Oh, my God! You're driving a tank!" went unheard and thus, unheeded.

But, born of such frustration, I had a small epiphany that expanded to a bigger epiphany, and that is what I am writing about now. Here's how my somewhat quirky thought processes go:

Because this was far from the first time I had noticed how overly cautious drivers of large, nearly indestructible vehicles are, I have proffered a theory (unscientifically, of course) that people who buy SUV's are either adventurous or wimps.

Some people buy them for the purpose of taking them off-road, grinding through tons of mud, uphill and down, swimming shallow creeks, four-wheeling across bone-jarring gullies and rocky landscapes, and bouncing up and down and around like the "Scrambler" ride at the amusement park.

But, alas, Most buy them because they fear being injured in a collision. They buy four wheel drive vehicles so they can maneuver easier in rain and snow, then drive in rain or snow as if they are driving on eggs and afraid they might break one.

It seems to me the latter far outnumbers the former. Most people buy SUV's because they are wimps.

And that epiphany led to a greater epiphany:

Our nation is becoming wussified.

It isn't only the purchasing of nearly indestructible vehicles that leads me to this conclusion. The evidence is in nearly every facet of American life.

A few examples:

The increasing obsession with eating healthy.

Our parents and grandparents never heard of such strange creatures as anti-oxidants, carbohydrates and cholesterol, yet most of our ancestors lived happy, healthy lives, many well into their eighties and ninety's.

My two great-grandmothers each lived to 92 years old. My paternal grandfather and grandmother lived to 84 and 92 respectively. My maternal grandmother lived into her 80's with Parkinson's syndrome. The only grandparent I had who died relatively young was my maternal grandfather, who only died young because he was struck by a bus.

My father passed away at 72. His doctor had him on a "healthy diet". My mother is still healthy and will soon celebrate her 90th birthday. She eats whatever she wants.

Did they live long because they didn't have the added stress from worrying constantly about their BFI or heart rate? Or maybe, just possibly, there is really nothing so unhealthy in our food that we need to radically change our diets.


Jim Fixx, the author of "The Complete Book of Running", a book extolling the benefits of physical exercise and how it considerably increased the average human being's life expectancy, suddenly dropped dead from a heart attack shortly after one of his regular morning jogs. He was 52.

Dr. James Rodale, a leading expert in health and healthy foods, taped an interview on the Dick Cavett show, during which he said, "I'm gonna live to be a 100", and promptly hit the floor to do 100 push-ups.

Minutes later, Dr. Rodale was dead, a victim of a heart attack, still sitting right there on Mr. Cavett's couch.

I have my own theory about exercise vs. health:

I believe there is only a finite number of beats in the human heart. Once the last beat is reached, you die. No amount of healthy eating or exercise can change that number. It is your number. When your number's up, your number's up.

Exercise increases the heart beat rate. The heart beats faster, thereby making the heart beat number increase more rapidly. Which results in a quicker death.

These examples deal with a fear of death. There are other examples dealing with sensitivity.

Our people have become so afraid of offending each other, that the best thing for us to do is never speak to anybody. About anything. You never know when you might be offending someone.

We can't pray at public events because of the off-chance we might offend some atheist.

We can't use the word, "Queer" because we might offend some homo.

We can no longer keep score at t-ball games because, God forbid, some 6 year-old players might feel bad if they lose.

Some school teachers can't mark test papers in red ink for fear of hurting some lazy student's feelings.

We can't give out awards to high achievers because by so doing we might inadvertently injure some low achiever's psyche. We must, instead, give all the participants an award regardless of the level of achievement.

We can't suspect young middle eastern appearing men might be terrorists for fear of offending Muslims, most of whom are either terrorists or at least, support Islamic jihadists.

Men must be sensitive, while, paradoxically, women must be strong and self sufficient. Stating the obvious fact that men are physically stronger than women and as such, can actually perform some tasks better than women is offensive to women. (and girly men)

Stating the obvious fact that some people have darker skins than others is tantamount to being a racist, and offensive to people with dark skins.

Normal ordinary thinking people know it's better to throw trash away in the proper receptacle than to carelessly toss it on the ground. Nature just looks more pristine that way.

But, only in massive doses can it do significant damage to the overall environment. (A fact seemingly lost on Liberals at their omnipresent rallies. Did you ever see pictures of the mess they leave in their wake?)

Mindless, unthinking, sheep minded people have created an entire global movement to convince people that littering and improper disposal of trash will destroy the earth in a matter of days, if not seconds if we don't start being more sensitive to our environment. (as long as we don't apply the same standards to them)

Somebody, a few years ago, walked out into their yard one unusually hot Spring or Autumn day and concluded that the earth must be warming up, and from that poorly thought out hypothesis, came the still unproven theory of Global Warming.

Now, AlGore and other equally clueless Liberals, are warning us that we will destroy the earth in the aforementioned same number of days or seconds, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Liberals are sounding the alarm every day about some new crisis that will ultimately destroy our planet, and the destruction is always imminent.

There are many, many other examples. Super-sensitivity abounds.

I could write a book on the subject, but suffice it to say...

America has become wussified.

Cross posted at American Descent.