He has no humility, so why does Obama bow so often?
Chris Christie for president!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Obama Bows Again
Obama meets Chris Christie (R) Governor of New Jersey, and bows before the better man.
He has no humility, so why does Obama bow so often?
Chris Christie for president!
He has no humility, so why does Obama bow so often?
Chris Christie for president!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Christie For President
"I could never be confused with Woodrow Wilson." ~ Governor Chris Christie
I know it's early, and I know lots of things can happen between now and the next presidential election, but one man is beginning to emerge as a "person of interest" to represent the Republican party in said election.
His name is Chris Christie.
Christie is the Governor of the state of New Jersey. I wonder how he managed to get so many of those foaming-at-the-mouth rabid Liberals to vote for him for Governor? Whatever he did, it worked.
And, I'll bet the Libs who apparently considered him no threat to their tax-and-spend Liberalism are now re-thinking their decision to vote for him.
If you've never heard of him so far, here is a sample of what Republicans may expect of a President Christie.
Here's more:
And, more:
More still:
Still more:
One more:
By 2012, I hope he decides he's ready.
I know it's early, and I know lots of things can happen between now and the next presidential election, but one man is beginning to emerge as a "person of interest" to represent the Republican party in said election.
His name is Chris Christie.
Christie is the Governor of the state of New Jersey. I wonder how he managed to get so many of those foaming-at-the-mouth rabid Liberals to vote for him for Governor? Whatever he did, it worked.
And, I'll bet the Libs who apparently considered him no threat to their tax-and-spend Liberalism are now re-thinking their decision to vote for him.
If you've never heard of him so far, here is a sample of what Republicans may expect of a President Christie.
Here's more:
And, more:
More still:
Still more:
One more:
By 2012, I hope he decides he's ready.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Racist Tea Party
Alan Keyes. He must have been brainwashed by the evil tea party conspirators:
A racist spokesman:
This woman must be mad, insulting Martin Luther King!
A racist veteran, After fighting against Socialist regimes, he just might know a thing or two about Socialism. What do you want to bet he's against it?
Must be an "Uncle Tom"
Obviously doesn't understand Keynesian economics:
HONK!
Pictured below is Kenneth Gladney (in the wheelchair). He was attacked and beaten at the St Louis Tea party by SEIU thugs. This is the man whom the NAACP refuses to defend, but, amazingly, has defended the actions of the thugs who attacked him. The attacks have been described as racially motivated. Keep in mind that the thugs who attacked him were NOT tea party attendees, but rather, protesting the tea partiers.Furthermore, Mr. Gladney was selling pro-Obama buttons and stickers at the event. Something tells me he's not pro Obama anymore.
To be fair, there are no doubt, some nuts on the fringes of the tea party movement that may really be racists. After all, racism is in all of us to some degree. It is in our genes.
However, Democrats are the only ones who can claim, with a straight face, that they are not racist. In actuality, it is the Liberal Democrats that most exhibit racist behavior, as the NAACP has proven.
However, Democrats are the only ones who can claim, with a straight face, that they are not racist. In actuality, it is the Liberal Democrats that most exhibit racist behavior, as the NAACP has proven.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Cockroaches
"There are two races of men in this world...the 'race' of the decent man and the 'race' of the indecent man." ~ Victor Frankl
Andrew Breitbart recently released a video of what appears to be a racist black woman boasting of racially discriminating against a white man, posted here:
Subsequent statements from both sides of the racial argument indicate that she was not quite as racist as we were initially led to believe.
But, what of her audience? Watch the speech. Her predominately black audience is nodding and murmuring in agreement with the part of the speech in which she tells of her conflicting thoughts on whether to help a white farmer, or do as little as possible for him. One NCAAP audience member is actually heard saying, "That's right!"
Are we to assume that her audience of predominately black NAACP members agree that discriminating against white men is wrong, as she eventually makes clear? Or, are they agreeing with discrimination against white men?
I think we are focusing too much on only a small part of this problem. This isn't about one woman who arguably may or may not be demonstrating a racist attitude.
This is about an attitude affecting entire races and cultures of people.
I have used this allegory before in comments at other blogs:
These racist attitudes are like cockroaches. When you walk into a darkened room, you see nothing out of the ordinary. But, when you turn on the lights, you may see a cockroach or two scurrying away and disappearing behind the baseboards to hide.
Please understand. Before you object to my metaphor, I am not comparing black people or white people or any other color of people to cockroaches.
I am comparing a racist attitude to cockroaches.
Whenever you hear a racist statement, or hear of a racist behavior from anyone of any race, whatever the degree of overtness, rest assured there are many more people who agree with the sentiment who are hiding behind the baseboards.
David Duke is not the only white person who has racist thoughts. King Samir Shabazz is not the only black man who has racist thoughts. Osama bin Laden is not the only Muslim who has racist thoughts.
All of us have, at one time or another, said or thought something about a person or persons of another race which could be considered racist. I know I have. And, I think if you readers are honest with yourselves, you would have to admit you have, too.
Let's be frank. Try as we might, we can't escape thinking racist thoughts. It is in our genes.
The audience attending Shirley Sherrod's speech may not consider themselves racist. Shirley Sherrod may not consider herself racist. And, they may not be overtly racist. But the underlying racist attitude is there. It is obvious in their responses and their acceptance of her speech.
As an aside, I would also like to point out that racism is not indigenous to only the white race.
Blacks can be equally as racist as whites.
There seems to be some unwritten rule that black people cannot be racist. That only whites can be considered racists.
When was the last time, excluding this recent video of Shirley Sherrod's speech and Conservative blog posts, that we heard of a black person being called a racist?
Even Conservative news reporters and talk show hosts don't call a black person racist. They call them "race baiters" or "race profiteers" or "racial dividers", etc. But rarely do they call racist black people racist.
Should we create some sort of "Racist Anonymous" organization to rid ourselves of this attitude? Should we implement a 12 step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous?
Should we not hold blacks who exhibit this racist attitude to account? If we should, we aren't. At least, not consistently. But we certainly hold white people to a higher standard of expectation, don't we?
And why not? For decades it's been hammered into white people that we are racists and we need to stop being racist. That hammering has not been directed towards blacks for the most part.
Our racist attitudes, whether we are black, white, or neutral, are hidden from view until exposed to the light of day by some public revelation, and then we hurriedly conceal them behind the baseboards of righteous indignation:
"Don't call me racist! Why, some of my best friends are____ (fill in the blank)!"
It is that attitude that we must, like cockroaches, eradicate. It is essential to the health and well-being of our Republic.
Just as cockroaches carry disease, a racist attitude carries with it a disease of the soul.
Martin Luther King's dream applies to all of us. Whites, Blacks, Neutrals. All races must begin to judge each other, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
Once done, and only then, can we get the racial divide in this country behind us.
Andrew Breitbart recently released a video of what appears to be a racist black woman boasting of racially discriminating against a white man, posted here:
Subsequent statements from both sides of the racial argument indicate that she was not quite as racist as we were initially led to believe.
But, what of her audience? Watch the speech. Her predominately black audience is nodding and murmuring in agreement with the part of the speech in which she tells of her conflicting thoughts on whether to help a white farmer, or do as little as possible for him. One NCAAP audience member is actually heard saying, "That's right!"
Are we to assume that her audience of predominately black NAACP members agree that discriminating against white men is wrong, as she eventually makes clear? Or, are they agreeing with discrimination against white men?
I think we are focusing too much on only a small part of this problem. This isn't about one woman who arguably may or may not be demonstrating a racist attitude.
This is about an attitude affecting entire races and cultures of people.
I have used this allegory before in comments at other blogs:
These racist attitudes are like cockroaches. When you walk into a darkened room, you see nothing out of the ordinary. But, when you turn on the lights, you may see a cockroach or two scurrying away and disappearing behind the baseboards to hide.
Please understand. Before you object to my metaphor, I am not comparing black people or white people or any other color of people to cockroaches.
I am comparing a racist attitude to cockroaches.
Whenever you hear a racist statement, or hear of a racist behavior from anyone of any race, whatever the degree of overtness, rest assured there are many more people who agree with the sentiment who are hiding behind the baseboards.
David Duke is not the only white person who has racist thoughts. King Samir Shabazz is not the only black man who has racist thoughts. Osama bin Laden is not the only Muslim who has racist thoughts.
All of us have, at one time or another, said or thought something about a person or persons of another race which could be considered racist. I know I have. And, I think if you readers are honest with yourselves, you would have to admit you have, too.
Let's be frank. Try as we might, we can't escape thinking racist thoughts. It is in our genes.
The audience attending Shirley Sherrod's speech may not consider themselves racist. Shirley Sherrod may not consider herself racist. And, they may not be overtly racist. But the underlying racist attitude is there. It is obvious in their responses and their acceptance of her speech.
As an aside, I would also like to point out that racism is not indigenous to only the white race.
Blacks can be equally as racist as whites.
There seems to be some unwritten rule that black people cannot be racist. That only whites can be considered racists.
When was the last time, excluding this recent video of Shirley Sherrod's speech and Conservative blog posts, that we heard of a black person being called a racist?
Even Conservative news reporters and talk show hosts don't call a black person racist. They call them "race baiters" or "race profiteers" or "racial dividers", etc. But rarely do they call racist black people racist.
Should we create some sort of "Racist Anonymous" organization to rid ourselves of this attitude? Should we implement a 12 step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous?
Should we not hold blacks who exhibit this racist attitude to account? If we should, we aren't. At least, not consistently. But we certainly hold white people to a higher standard of expectation, don't we?
And why not? For decades it's been hammered into white people that we are racists and we need to stop being racist. That hammering has not been directed towards blacks for the most part.
Our racist attitudes, whether we are black, white, or neutral, are hidden from view until exposed to the light of day by some public revelation, and then we hurriedly conceal them behind the baseboards of righteous indignation:
"Don't call me racist! Why, some of my best friends are____ (fill in the blank)!"
It is that attitude that we must, like cockroaches, eradicate. It is essential to the health and well-being of our Republic.
Just as cockroaches carry disease, a racist attitude carries with it a disease of the soul.
Martin Luther King's dream applies to all of us. Whites, Blacks, Neutrals. All races must begin to judge each other, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".
Once done, and only then, can we get the racial divide in this country behind us.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Barack The Divider
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Barack Hussein Obama ran for President promising, among other lofty and unrealistic goals, that, if elected, he'd be a unifier. Rifts between parties would be closed. The division between races would be ended. The nation would come together.
From where I sit, now that he has attained the office, the exact opposite has happened. The gaps are wider now than they were before. There is perhaps nearly as much distance between opposing ideological and racial views now as there was in the days immediately preceding the Civil War.
Foremost among these gaps is the chasm that has existed between the races, particularly between blacks and whites. A chasm that, until recently was narrowing, is now expanding. Much of the progress this country has made in the last five decades in race relations has been reversed.
I am, like most Americans, an observer of current events, and it appears to these old eyes that the election of Obama as President has increased, rather than decreased, the animosity between the more extreme racists of all colors and nationalities.
Whether it is a policy of the new Obama regime to further separate the races as a means to a political end, or simply a consequence of the election of a black man in a Nation not yet ready to accept a black President remains to be seen.
I would venture to say it is both, although, Obama's administration appears to be encouraging racism from groups who support him against those who don't.
And, we are witnessing an increase of racist rhetoric and violence from representatives of so-called civil rights groups against the white population.
And, lets not forget the emergence of Hispanics as a growing vocal force with which to be reckoned.
Not that White racism doesn't still exist, of course. It does.
But, I am beginning to think people of color have become emboldened by the election of Obama to the Presidency, and are using their new found status as a "new majority" to wield a heavy hammer. Some black people appear to be exacting vengeance on White America for years of oppression and discrimination.
Indeed, some righteous indignation is justified, but shouldn't it be directed at those who have actually committed the offense rather than the whole white race in general?
I base this observation on the increased incidents of blatant racist behavior and rhetoric from certain more militant (and not so militant) factions of black and Hispanic organizations such as the formerly revered NAACP, the New Black Panther party, and others, including Hispanic groups such as La Raza, and Chicanos Por La Causa.
In the past, any group, white, black, or Hispanic, would have been publicly condemned by the press and fair-minded people alike if they had acted out in the way some of these groups have done since the election of Obama.
Examples?
The unfounded and ridiculous charge that tea party attendees are racists, and neither Obama or the Liberal news outlets refute the charge.
The racially motivated beating of a black man at a tea party in St Louis by SEIU thugs, and Obama and the Leftist news media not only turn a blind eye to it, but, when it becomes obvious that the story is not going to just fade away, supports the NAACP's defense (not condemnation)of the attackers, rather than call for a censure of the once respected NAACP.
Just a thought:
Above: Kenneth Gladney was beaten at a tea party by SEIU thugs. The attack was described as racially motivated.
What a topsy-turvy world we live in when the NAACP actually supports and defends white thugs who beat up a black man, particularly a black man who was selling pro-Obama buttons and stickers at a tea party event! Where was the supposed intolerance of the tea partiers in this instance?
Whats wrong with this picture?
Obama's DOJ's inexplicable withdrawal of the lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating prospective voters outside a Pennsylvania polling pace, and no significant coverage or outrage expressed by the government run media.
A black man calling for--in public--the murder of white babies, and again, little or no coverage or expressed indignation from the left leaning news media, or from the President himself. Does this indicate the President agrees with the sentiment?
The Obama regime itself brings suit against the state of Arizona alleging that the passage of Arizona's new illegal immigration law (which merely seeks to uphold existing Federal immigration law) is preemptive of Federal law (huh?) under the ridiculous presumption that it will encourage racial profiling. One doesn't have to look too far into this to recognize Obama's handiwork.
I don't like to play the "comparison" game, but we all know if these offenses were committed by white people against people of color, the outrage expressed by the media would know no bounds, yet, outrage is nearly non-existent, outside of FOX News.
In fact, if history is any indication, there would be riots and bloodshed in the streets across America.
I would submit that the apparent refusal of the President to defuse these culture clashes indicates a tacit approval of the racist actions and rhetoric of these race baiting organizations, and by doing so, we can expect more, much more, of the same in the future, unless this "unifier" starts uniting, as he promised.
If Obama would simply publicly condemn these racial offenses, perhaps we could take his claims of being a "unifier" a bit more seriously.
Barack Hussein Obama ran for President promising, among other lofty and unrealistic goals, that, if elected, he'd be a unifier. Rifts between parties would be closed. The division between races would be ended. The nation would come together.
From where I sit, now that he has attained the office, the exact opposite has happened. The gaps are wider now than they were before. There is perhaps nearly as much distance between opposing ideological and racial views now as there was in the days immediately preceding the Civil War.
Foremost among these gaps is the chasm that has existed between the races, particularly between blacks and whites. A chasm that, until recently was narrowing, is now expanding. Much of the progress this country has made in the last five decades in race relations has been reversed.
I am, like most Americans, an observer of current events, and it appears to these old eyes that the election of Obama as President has increased, rather than decreased, the animosity between the more extreme racists of all colors and nationalities.
Whether it is a policy of the new Obama regime to further separate the races as a means to a political end, or simply a consequence of the election of a black man in a Nation not yet ready to accept a black President remains to be seen.
I would venture to say it is both, although, Obama's administration appears to be encouraging racism from groups who support him against those who don't.
And, we are witnessing an increase of racist rhetoric and violence from representatives of so-called civil rights groups against the white population.
And, lets not forget the emergence of Hispanics as a growing vocal force with which to be reckoned.
Not that White racism doesn't still exist, of course. It does.
But, I am beginning to think people of color have become emboldened by the election of Obama to the Presidency, and are using their new found status as a "new majority" to wield a heavy hammer. Some black people appear to be exacting vengeance on White America for years of oppression and discrimination.
Indeed, some righteous indignation is justified, but shouldn't it be directed at those who have actually committed the offense rather than the whole white race in general?
I base this observation on the increased incidents of blatant racist behavior and rhetoric from certain more militant (and not so militant) factions of black and Hispanic organizations such as the formerly revered NAACP, the New Black Panther party, and others, including Hispanic groups such as La Raza, and Chicanos Por La Causa.
In the past, any group, white, black, or Hispanic, would have been publicly condemned by the press and fair-minded people alike if they had acted out in the way some of these groups have done since the election of Obama.
Examples?
The unfounded and ridiculous charge that tea party attendees are racists, and neither Obama or the Liberal news outlets refute the charge.
The racially motivated beating of a black man at a tea party in St Louis by SEIU thugs, and Obama and the Leftist news media not only turn a blind eye to it, but, when it becomes obvious that the story is not going to just fade away, supports the NAACP's defense (not condemnation)of the attackers, rather than call for a censure of the once respected NAACP.
Just a thought:
Above: Kenneth Gladney was beaten at a tea party by SEIU thugs. The attack was described as racially motivated.Whats wrong with this picture?
Obama's DOJ's inexplicable withdrawal of the lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating prospective voters outside a Pennsylvania polling pace, and no significant coverage or outrage expressed by the government run media.
A black man calling for--in public--the murder of white babies, and again, little or no coverage or expressed indignation from the left leaning news media, or from the President himself. Does this indicate the President agrees with the sentiment?
The Obama regime itself brings suit against the state of Arizona alleging that the passage of Arizona's new illegal immigration law (which merely seeks to uphold existing Federal immigration law) is preemptive of Federal law (huh?) under the ridiculous presumption that it will encourage racial profiling. One doesn't have to look too far into this to recognize Obama's handiwork.
I don't like to play the "comparison" game, but we all know if these offenses were committed by white people against people of color, the outrage expressed by the media would know no bounds, yet, outrage is nearly non-existent, outside of FOX News.
In fact, if history is any indication, there would be riots and bloodshed in the streets across America.
I would submit that the apparent refusal of the President to defuse these culture clashes indicates a tacit approval of the racist actions and rhetoric of these race baiting organizations, and by doing so, we can expect more, much more, of the same in the future, unless this "unifier" starts uniting, as he promised.
If Obama would simply publicly condemn these racial offenses, perhaps we could take his claims of being a "unifier" a bit more seriously.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
We're Coming To Get You
I don't know if this video will be available by the time anyone visits here. Powerline Blog posted one link to it and it was removed. Then, they posted this one, and they say they think Liberals have been trying to remove it from Youtube.
I'm posting it here, regardless.
I'm posting it here, regardless.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Less LeBron, More Brains
"If all the year were playing holidays; To sport would be as tedious as to work." ~ William Shakespeare
Am I the only person in America that hasn't gone apoplectic about basketball player Lebron James' defection to Miami?
You fools, You pay your money, and I still play anywhere I want.
What is the big deal? Even if he is the greatest basketball player in history, which is highly doubtful anyway, he is, after all, only a man. And Basketball is only a game.
And, professional basketball, if you've seen any games in the last 20 years or so, has come to resemble not so much a game, as a rumble between the Crips and the Bloods.
A basketball team consists of five players playing together. If the rest of the team is ineffective, James would not be able to win any games singlehandedly.
So, I ask again: What's the big deal?
Lebron James playing for my favorite team (If I had a favorite basketball team) would not put any money in my pocket. In fact, no player from any sport is going to personally make me richer or smarter, or a better or worse person in any way.
I have no dog in this hunt. So, why should I care?
I am a sports fan but I think sports fans in America need to put things in their proper perspective.
This, by the way, is pretty good advice, if I do say so myself. I came to this realization many years ago on my own, and it's made me a saner, calmer, relaxed, less stressed man.
Before you get all excited about any professional sports team or player, consider this sage advice:
1. It is a sport. Recreation. A game. Whether it's basketball, football, baseball, soccer, Nascar, whatever. Sports are not a life or death priority. They are merely a diversion that offers some respite from the rat race.
A good book can do the same. Better, really. A good book can make a positive difference in your intellect, as well.
2. Professional athletes are paid quite handsomely, many obscenely, to play a game. They have no loyalty to the city or region where they play. They play for money.
Even if they play for the love of the game first and the money is not an important priority to them, if they've even come to love the city their team represents, it makes absolutely no difference.
If some other team offered them more money, they would be out and gone before you can say, "Rah, Rah."
Now, I have no problem with Lebron James or any other professional athlete making as much money as their teams want to pay. It is a capitalist system, and I am all in favor of the people being allowed to float their fiduciary boats wherever they want, as long as it's legal. If people want to foolishly pay exorbitant prices for an hour or two of entertainment, I say, "Go For it. Have fun".
I watch the games on TV for next to nothing, get better (and multiple) views of the action, and can walk into the kitchen for a free sandwich without missing anything important. After all, if it's very important or exciting, they will replay it ad nauseum.
3. Every year, the team that wins the league or world championship has to go right back out there and try to win it again the following year. The thrill of winning the championship is fleeting at best.
I was born in Kansas City, MO, and raised in Wichita, KS, less than 200 miles from KC. I like the Kansas City Chiefs. I like the Kansas City Royals. I even like the Kansas City Wizards. Do I want to see them win? Yes.
Do I get angry, depressed, distressed, or suicidal if they don't?
No.
For those of you who aren't sports fans, these Kansas City sports teams are not perennial winners. They are, in fact, perennial losers.
But, nevertheless, I watch the games. I enjoy the games. Usually. If they are fairly well played, I enjoy them. Whether they win or lose. If they win, I am reasonably happy for them, although nothing approaching euphoria.
If they lose, I shrug my shoulders and say to myself, "Oh well, the better team won this time". Then, I go on about my business.
They are not my teams. They don't even belong to the city. The players are not native born Kansas Citians. Why should they care where they play or for whom?
They shouldn't. And I don't care, either.
Just watch the games. Enjoy them. Appreciate their athleticism and their talent.
But keep them in their proper perspective.
Am I the only person in America that hasn't gone apoplectic about basketball player Lebron James' defection to Miami?
You fools, You pay your money, and I still play anywhere I want.What is the big deal? Even if he is the greatest basketball player in history, which is highly doubtful anyway, he is, after all, only a man. And Basketball is only a game.
And, professional basketball, if you've seen any games in the last 20 years or so, has come to resemble not so much a game, as a rumble between the Crips and the Bloods.
A basketball team consists of five players playing together. If the rest of the team is ineffective, James would not be able to win any games singlehandedly.
So, I ask again: What's the big deal?
Lebron James playing for my favorite team (If I had a favorite basketball team) would not put any money in my pocket. In fact, no player from any sport is going to personally make me richer or smarter, or a better or worse person in any way.
I have no dog in this hunt. So, why should I care?
I am a sports fan but I think sports fans in America need to put things in their proper perspective.
This, by the way, is pretty good advice, if I do say so myself. I came to this realization many years ago on my own, and it's made me a saner, calmer, relaxed, less stressed man.
Before you get all excited about any professional sports team or player, consider this sage advice:
1. It is a sport. Recreation. A game. Whether it's basketball, football, baseball, soccer, Nascar, whatever. Sports are not a life or death priority. They are merely a diversion that offers some respite from the rat race.
A good book can do the same. Better, really. A good book can make a positive difference in your intellect, as well.
2. Professional athletes are paid quite handsomely, many obscenely, to play a game. They have no loyalty to the city or region where they play. They play for money.
Even if they play for the love of the game first and the money is not an important priority to them, if they've even come to love the city their team represents, it makes absolutely no difference.
If some other team offered them more money, they would be out and gone before you can say, "Rah, Rah."
Now, I have no problem with Lebron James or any other professional athlete making as much money as their teams want to pay. It is a capitalist system, and I am all in favor of the people being allowed to float their fiduciary boats wherever they want, as long as it's legal. If people want to foolishly pay exorbitant prices for an hour or two of entertainment, I say, "Go For it. Have fun".
I watch the games on TV for next to nothing, get better (and multiple) views of the action, and can walk into the kitchen for a free sandwich without missing anything important. After all, if it's very important or exciting, they will replay it ad nauseum.
3. Every year, the team that wins the league or world championship has to go right back out there and try to win it again the following year. The thrill of winning the championship is fleeting at best.
I was born in Kansas City, MO, and raised in Wichita, KS, less than 200 miles from KC. I like the Kansas City Chiefs. I like the Kansas City Royals. I even like the Kansas City Wizards. Do I want to see them win? Yes.
Do I get angry, depressed, distressed, or suicidal if they don't?
No.
For those of you who aren't sports fans, these Kansas City sports teams are not perennial winners. They are, in fact, perennial losers.
But, nevertheless, I watch the games. I enjoy the games. Usually. If they are fairly well played, I enjoy them. Whether they win or lose. If they win, I am reasonably happy for them, although nothing approaching euphoria.
If they lose, I shrug my shoulders and say to myself, "Oh well, the better team won this time". Then, I go on about my business.
They are not my teams. They don't even belong to the city. The players are not native born Kansas Citians. Why should they care where they play or for whom?
They shouldn't. And I don't care, either.
Just watch the games. Enjoy them. Appreciate their athleticism and their talent.
But keep them in their proper perspective.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Who Are The Real Fascists?
"When Fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will be in Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts." ~ George Carlin
Lowering the voting age to eighteen.
The minimum age for Representatives to twenty-five.
Universal suffrage, including for women.
End of the draft.
A Federal law sanctioning a legal work day of an actual eight hours of work for all workers.
A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.
A minimum wage.
Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.
A progressive tax.
These principles are all principles of modern liberalism in America. They define much of what Liberals stand for today. With a few minor modifications.
But, do you know what other political ideology embodies those exact same principles?
Want a hint?
Here's more:
The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce, and culture.
Repeal of titles of nobility.
A foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.
Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.
The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the proletariat's moral and cultural condition.
The progressive tax (mentioned above) would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.
The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.
The review of all military contracts and the sequestration of 85% of all war profits.
The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.
Here's the answer:
These are some highlights of the principles upon which the Fasci di Combattimento was founded, back in 1919, by Benito Mussolini.
Better known as Fascism.
This post is already too lengthy. I'm not going to explain which of these fascist principles are seemingly already on Obama's drawing board.
But, should the act of creating unelected and unaccountable "czars" to regulate, advise, and create official government policy give us pause?
How about the words, "America is not a Christian nation"?
Or, the phrase, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them..."?
Or the Government takeover of automobile industries, banks and lending institutions, and insurance companies, etc.?
Am I making my point clear?
For the benefit of any left-wing moderately progressive Liberals who may have accidentally or intentionally stumbled upon my humble blog, I'll make it crystal clear, because I know you aren't bright enough to make the connection:
The principles outlined by Mussolini's Fascist party are the exact same principles embraced by modern American liberals.
So, before you hurl insults such as "Fascists", "Brown shirts", "Nazi's", "Jack-booted storm troopers", "Racists", etc, at Conservatives, first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing.
Then, shut the Hell up.
Or don't.
I don't care.
It's still a free country. You still have the right to disagree.
So far.
cross posted at American Descent.
Lowering the voting age to eighteen.
The minimum age for Representatives to twenty-five.
Universal suffrage, including for women.
End of the draft.
A Federal law sanctioning a legal work day of an actual eight hours of work for all workers.
A creation of various government bodies run by workers representatives.
A minimum wage.
Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.
A progressive tax.
These principles are all principles of modern liberalism in America. They define much of what Liberals stand for today. With a few minor modifications.
But, do you know what other political ideology embodies those exact same principles?
Want a hint?
Here's more:
The abolition of the Senate and the creation of a national technical council on intellectual and manual labor, industry, commerce, and culture.
Repeal of titles of nobility.
A foreign policy aimed at expanding the nation's will and power in opposition to all foreign imperialisms.
Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated and given to veterans and farmers' cooperatives.
The obligation of the state to build "rigidly secular" schools for the proletariat's moral and cultural condition.
The progressive tax (mentioned above) would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.
The seizure of all goods belonging to religious congregations and the abolition of episcopal revenues.
The review of all military contracts and the sequestration of 85% of all war profits.
The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.
Here's the answer:
These are some highlights of the principles upon which the Fasci di Combattimento was founded, back in 1919, by Benito Mussolini.
Better known as Fascism.
This post is already too lengthy. I'm not going to explain which of these fascist principles are seemingly already on Obama's drawing board.
But, should the act of creating unelected and unaccountable "czars" to regulate, advise, and create official government policy give us pause?
How about the words, "America is not a Christian nation"?
Or, the phrase, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them..."?
Or the Government takeover of automobile industries, banks and lending institutions, and insurance companies, etc.?
Am I making my point clear?
For the benefit of any left-wing moderately progressive Liberals who may have accidentally or intentionally stumbled upon my humble blog, I'll make it crystal clear, because I know you aren't bright enough to make the connection:
The principles outlined by Mussolini's Fascist party are the exact same principles embraced by modern American liberals.
So, before you hurl insults such as "Fascists", "Brown shirts", "Nazi's", "Jack-booted storm troopers", "Racists", etc, at Conservatives, first consider which political ideology most closely resembles the traits you are describing.
Then, shut the Hell up.
Or don't.
I don't care.
It's still a free country. You still have the right to disagree.
So far.
cross posted at American Descent.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Crybabies
"I cried because I had no shoes till I saw a man with no feet" ~ Assalam O alaikum
It's meant to be clever and funny, but within it there is a much deeper message. In the following Geico ad, the question is posed, "Does a former drill sergeant make a terrible therapist?"
The answer is a resounding, "NO".
In fact, I believe 98% of all therapy should be conducted in this manner. It's all part of what I've been saying:
We are becoming a nation of whiny little wusses.
If, in the future, some aggressor nation wishes to conquer the United States, all they will have to do is attack our aggregate self esteem, then waltz right in while we're busy feeling sorry for ourselves and take over.
People need to suck it up and stop crying about their petty little problems.
For all my readers who take offense at this post, consider the old admonition: "If the shoe fits, wear it."
Being offended seems to be our new national pastime.
The opening quote is from a Muslim poem. Also found in the poem are these words, "so if I want to cry now and ever, I will cry for forgiveness."
I find myself agreeing with this sentiment.
It's meant to be clever and funny, but within it there is a much deeper message. In the following Geico ad, the question is posed, "Does a former drill sergeant make a terrible therapist?"
The answer is a resounding, "NO".
In fact, I believe 98% of all therapy should be conducted in this manner. It's all part of what I've been saying:
We are becoming a nation of whiny little wusses.
If, in the future, some aggressor nation wishes to conquer the United States, all they will have to do is attack our aggregate self esteem, then waltz right in while we're busy feeling sorry for ourselves and take over.
People need to suck it up and stop crying about their petty little problems.
For all my readers who take offense at this post, consider the old admonition: "If the shoe fits, wear it."
Being offended seems to be our new national pastime.
The opening quote is from a Muslim poem. Also found in the poem are these words, "so if I want to cry now and ever, I will cry for forgiveness."
I find myself agreeing with this sentiment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
