Sunday, March 29, 2009
What's In My E-Mail
"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan
The following was sent to me by e-mail this morning:
Missing from the news
You're a 19 year old kid, critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the La Drang Valley , 11- 14-1965, LZ Xray, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around he world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because there are no Medi-Vac markings on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were told not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the waiting doctors and nurses. And he kept coming back....... 13 more times..... and took over 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor recipient Ed Freeman died September 26, 2008, in Boise, Idaho, at the age of 80.
Paul Newman died that day too.
But I guess you knew that.
The following was sent to me by e-mail this morning:
Missing from the news
You're a 19 year old kid, critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the La Drang Valley , 11- 14-1965, LZ Xray, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around he world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because there are no Medi-Vac markings on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were told not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the waiting doctors and nurses. And he kept coming back....... 13 more times..... and took over 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor recipient Ed Freeman died September 26, 2008, in Boise, Idaho, at the age of 80.
Paul Newman died that day too.
But I guess you knew that.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Herding Cats
"I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts." ~ Rodney Dangerfield
Over at American Descent, a blog who's creator showed a complete lack of common sense and intelligence by asking me to be one of the administrators (as Groucho said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members"), a thread has developed in the comments section of an entry about house bill H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, in which lawmakers have proposed creating a volunteer, yet mandatory civilian youth force.
Of course, mandatory volunteerism is an oxymoron. If it's mandatory, it can't be voluntary.
And vice versa.
Naturally, such a well written and well thought out blog post has brought the Libtards out of the woodwork, as most good Conservative commentaries so often do, to object and to ridicule with all the typical Liberal half truths, obfuscations, spin, and distractions.
My own contributions to the thread are not particularly insightful or very well thought out, I admit, but I have been feeling unusually surly and curmudgeonly lately, and am pretty much fed up with the blind Obama worship being exhibited by mindless Liberal Obamaphiles since Obama burst onto America's political scene. So, I just let 'er rip without regard to sensitivities.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But a few hours ago, while I was traveling to Northern Virginia to do some of my own voluntary (but not mandatory) volunteer work, a thought occurred to me:
It would be almost worth allowing such a bill to pass just so we can watch Obama and his minions attempt to force America's youth into volunteering for anything.
Anyone who knows teenagers know they will never willingly do anything that any authority figure wants them to do.
We all know that Obama's plan to subject America's youth to this indoctrination program is specifically targeted towards the youth in our inner cities. Of course, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful, especially among inner city young people.
The youth in our inner cities have only three main goals in life:
1. Getting both rich and high off Drugs.
2. Playing Basketball.
3. Becoming a rap star. (not necessarily in that order)
Now, knowing the inner city youth of America has these lofty goals in mind, what makes Mr. Obama think they will put those goals aside to volunteer to do anything if it doesn't include basketball, drugs, or rap? Even if he makes such voluntary projects mandatory?
For that matter, does he really expect suburban youth to acquiesce? Especially those who's parents make over $250,000 a year?
It just aint going to happen.
Obama's plan will be as easy as pushing a rope.
Uphill.
I'd really like to see how Obama is going to do what parents of teenagers have failed to do since time began. Make teenagers do what they're told.
I wonder. When it becomes obvious he has bit off much more than he can chew, how will he react? Will he attempt to punish them for their disobedience? What punishments will he suggest?
He might as well try to herd cats. In fact, herding cats would be easy compared to trying to make American teenagers volunteer to do anything constructive.
Now, if Obama wants them to destroy or demolish something, I'm sure he will find little difficulty finding volunteers.
But finding teenagers willing to help? That's a laugh.
Over at American Descent, a blog who's creator showed a complete lack of common sense and intelligence by asking me to be one of the administrators (as Groucho said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members"), a thread has developed in the comments section of an entry about house bill H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, in which lawmakers have proposed creating a volunteer, yet mandatory civilian youth force.
Of course, mandatory volunteerism is an oxymoron. If it's mandatory, it can't be voluntary.
And vice versa.
Naturally, such a well written and well thought out blog post has brought the Libtards out of the woodwork, as most good Conservative commentaries so often do, to object and to ridicule with all the typical Liberal half truths, obfuscations, spin, and distractions.
My own contributions to the thread are not particularly insightful or very well thought out, I admit, but I have been feeling unusually surly and curmudgeonly lately, and am pretty much fed up with the blind Obama worship being exhibited by mindless Liberal Obamaphiles since Obama burst onto America's political scene. So, I just let 'er rip without regard to sensitivities.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But a few hours ago, while I was traveling to Northern Virginia to do some of my own voluntary (but not mandatory) volunteer work, a thought occurred to me:
It would be almost worth allowing such a bill to pass just so we can watch Obama and his minions attempt to force America's youth into volunteering for anything.
Anyone who knows teenagers know they will never willingly do anything that any authority figure wants them to do.
We all know that Obama's plan to subject America's youth to this indoctrination program is specifically targeted towards the youth in our inner cities. Of course, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful, especially among inner city young people.
The youth in our inner cities have only three main goals in life:
1. Getting both rich and high off Drugs.
2. Playing Basketball.
3. Becoming a rap star. (not necessarily in that order)
Now, knowing the inner city youth of America has these lofty goals in mind, what makes Mr. Obama think they will put those goals aside to volunteer to do anything if it doesn't include basketball, drugs, or rap? Even if he makes such voluntary projects mandatory?
For that matter, does he really expect suburban youth to acquiesce? Especially those who's parents make over $250,000 a year?
It just aint going to happen.
Obama's plan will be as easy as pushing a rope.
Uphill.
I'd really like to see how Obama is going to do what parents of teenagers have failed to do since time began. Make teenagers do what they're told.
I wonder. When it becomes obvious he has bit off much more than he can chew, how will he react? Will he attempt to punish them for their disobedience? What punishments will he suggest?
He might as well try to herd cats. In fact, herding cats would be easy compared to trying to make American teenagers volunteer to do anything constructive.
Now, if Obama wants them to destroy or demolish something, I'm sure he will find little difficulty finding volunteers.
But finding teenagers willing to help? That's a laugh.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Underestimating Obama
"Crime does not pay ... as well as politics." ~ Alfred E. Newman
I've been thinking. We might be underestimating just how effective Barack Hussein Obama's policies are.
I discussed The bonuses awarded to AIG's executives in a previous entry, in which I mentioned bonuses generally are awarded to employees that surpass certain goals over and above their every day duties, but in doing so, I led readers to assume the AIG executives who received those bonuses didn't deserve them.
In point of fact, I don't really know if they deserved them or not. It could be, that the executives who were awarded bonuses were employees who actually did reach the goals established in their respective contractual agreements. Perhaps the employees who failed to meet the qualifications stipulated in their contracts didn't get any bonuses at all.
I assume it is possible that some employees did their jobs exceptionally well, while the rest of the corporation foundered.
Be that as it may, We now are hearing reports of hundreds of people converging outside the private homes of various AIG executives to protest the awarding of these bonuses. They are outraged that taxpayers are funding the bonuses.
The perception is that these unnamed executives are greedy, callous, and altogether evil for daring to accept money freely given to them by their superiors in appreciation for their work, or at least because bonuses were written into their contracts regardless of achievement.
I am trying to picture these evil, evil bonus recipients:
I can picture a middle aged, bespectacled, balding, white man, bursting into his boss's office and demanding bonus money. I can picture him ranting and raving, spittle flying out of his mouth, while he's waving his arms about wildly, and screaming about how he will quit, or sue, or something much more drastic, if he isn't given hundreds of thousands of dollars for his hard work which inexplicably resulted in the failure of his entire department.
And I can picture his supervisor, quaking in fear before his underling, dropping to his knees in supplication before this intimidating spectacle, and pledging undying devotion, along with blustery promises that he would never, ever, "as God is my witness" deny his employee his just due.
Is this the picture Obama and his cronies are painting? Is it believable? In who's twisted world is this scenario even a remote possibility?
This is Obama's agenda. He wants to create a situation in which the corporations are evil and the government is the hero. And these hundreds of naive citizens are playing right into his hands.
The fact is, These bonuses were awarded by the upper echelon administrators of AIG, with the full complicity of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States of America. And their unabashed willing accomplices in the American media, who helped to propagate all out class warfare.
They had Carte Blanche to dole out these bonuses directly from Obama's omnibus spending bill, which the "transparent" Obama simply had to rush to sign before the wheels of Congress spun completely off the rims. He portrayed the economic problems of America to be an urgent crisis.
But that isn't how Obama's administration has spun it, is it?
Obama has nothing to do with this turn of events. His hands are clean. Geithner, the tax cheat, is blameless. Dodd, and Franks, and the other miscreants in Congress and the cabinet are spotless, aren't they?
It's all the evil, evil AIG executives who are at fault. The ones who received the bonuses. Not the one's who sprawled prostrate at the feet of Congress, begging for help in the form of enormous bail-out funds, the bulk of which they promptly deposited into several foreign banks.
The money distributed to their own in the form of bonuses was miniscule in comparison.
But Obama and his gang made sure the outrage was directed to the right sources.
But now, thanks to Obama's press agents, also known as the American media, these same evil executives are cowering inside their spacious homes, petrified with fear over the prospect that their lives, and the lives of their families are in imminient danger.
Blood may end up being spilled before it's all over.
And why? Because Obama needs to distract the American people from the real crime. His economic policy, which is crippling, and perhaps even destroying America's economy.
Obama's arrogance and insensitivity towards everything this great country holds dear, the democratic American dream, has moved to institute policies which may eventually destroy our country.
Look, there is a distinct possibility that many of these executives who received bonuses shouldn't have received them. But that is AIG's business. Not Obama's.
None of these companies should have been bailed out in the first place. The free market works just fine when it's left alone. It's not unlike Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" for business. Only the strong or wisest should survive. If the companies cannot make it without help, they should be allowed to die, and better stronger companies take their place. That's free market capitalism, and it's worked pretty well since the founding of this country.
The true reason Obama wanted to hand out taxpayer money wasn't to help business or the economy. The real reason was so he could wrest control of them.
When corporations allow the government to bail them out whenever they fail to manage their money responsibly, they give up control to the government. It's part of the package deal. "If we help you out of this present situation, you, in turn, will have to do as we say".
That's what Obama wants. To control the corporations.
Today, the corporations. Tomorrow it may be you.
I've been thinking. We might be underestimating just how effective Barack Hussein Obama's policies are.
I discussed The bonuses awarded to AIG's executives in a previous entry, in which I mentioned bonuses generally are awarded to employees that surpass certain goals over and above their every day duties, but in doing so, I led readers to assume the AIG executives who received those bonuses didn't deserve them.
In point of fact, I don't really know if they deserved them or not. It could be, that the executives who were awarded bonuses were employees who actually did reach the goals established in their respective contractual agreements. Perhaps the employees who failed to meet the qualifications stipulated in their contracts didn't get any bonuses at all.
I assume it is possible that some employees did their jobs exceptionally well, while the rest of the corporation foundered.
Be that as it may, We now are hearing reports of hundreds of people converging outside the private homes of various AIG executives to protest the awarding of these bonuses. They are outraged that taxpayers are funding the bonuses.
The perception is that these unnamed executives are greedy, callous, and altogether evil for daring to accept money freely given to them by their superiors in appreciation for their work, or at least because bonuses were written into their contracts regardless of achievement.
I am trying to picture these evil, evil bonus recipients:
I can picture a middle aged, bespectacled, balding, white man, bursting into his boss's office and demanding bonus money. I can picture him ranting and raving, spittle flying out of his mouth, while he's waving his arms about wildly, and screaming about how he will quit, or sue, or something much more drastic, if he isn't given hundreds of thousands of dollars for his hard work which inexplicably resulted in the failure of his entire department.
And I can picture his supervisor, quaking in fear before his underling, dropping to his knees in supplication before this intimidating spectacle, and pledging undying devotion, along with blustery promises that he would never, ever, "as God is my witness" deny his employee his just due.
Is this the picture Obama and his cronies are painting? Is it believable? In who's twisted world is this scenario even a remote possibility?
This is Obama's agenda. He wants to create a situation in which the corporations are evil and the government is the hero. And these hundreds of naive citizens are playing right into his hands.
The fact is, These bonuses were awarded by the upper echelon administrators of AIG, with the full complicity of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States of America. And their unabashed willing accomplices in the American media, who helped to propagate all out class warfare.
They had Carte Blanche to dole out these bonuses directly from Obama's omnibus spending bill, which the "transparent" Obama simply had to rush to sign before the wheels of Congress spun completely off the rims. He portrayed the economic problems of America to be an urgent crisis.
But that isn't how Obama's administration has spun it, is it?
Obama has nothing to do with this turn of events. His hands are clean. Geithner, the tax cheat, is blameless. Dodd, and Franks, and the other miscreants in Congress and the cabinet are spotless, aren't they?
It's all the evil, evil AIG executives who are at fault. The ones who received the bonuses. Not the one's who sprawled prostrate at the feet of Congress, begging for help in the form of enormous bail-out funds, the bulk of which they promptly deposited into several foreign banks.
The money distributed to their own in the form of bonuses was miniscule in comparison.
But Obama and his gang made sure the outrage was directed to the right sources.
But now, thanks to Obama's press agents, also known as the American media, these same evil executives are cowering inside their spacious homes, petrified with fear over the prospect that their lives, and the lives of their families are in imminient danger.
Blood may end up being spilled before it's all over.
And why? Because Obama needs to distract the American people from the real crime. His economic policy, which is crippling, and perhaps even destroying America's economy.
Obama's arrogance and insensitivity towards everything this great country holds dear, the democratic American dream, has moved to institute policies which may eventually destroy our country.
Look, there is a distinct possibility that many of these executives who received bonuses shouldn't have received them. But that is AIG's business. Not Obama's.
None of these companies should have been bailed out in the first place. The free market works just fine when it's left alone. It's not unlike Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" for business. Only the strong or wisest should survive. If the companies cannot make it without help, they should be allowed to die, and better stronger companies take their place. That's free market capitalism, and it's worked pretty well since the founding of this country.
The true reason Obama wanted to hand out taxpayer money wasn't to help business or the economy. The real reason was so he could wrest control of them.
When corporations allow the government to bail them out whenever they fail to manage their money responsibly, they give up control to the government. It's part of the package deal. "If we help you out of this present situation, you, in turn, will have to do as we say".
That's what Obama wants. To control the corporations.
Today, the corporations. Tomorrow it may be you.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Introducing A New Blog And Another Obama Gaffe
"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes
Yesterday, I received the following announcement in my e-mail:
Being from Illinois, I understand politics- It's a pay for play world. As such, I, President Barry O, has a deal for you. Not as good as an AIG exec, but pretty good none the less.
In an effort to reach out to my fellow Americans, I have launched my very own secret blog. Problem is, it's too secret. So Rahm had a great idea. I should offer a primo adviser gig to whoever sends us the must hits. I don't understand what that means, but Ram runs the show around here- so the offer stands. The link is http://presidentbarryo.blogspot.com/
President Berry O
What this means is whoever sends us the most traffic gets a charechter named after them. Mention us in a post, refering traffic to us, and we will count up the referals from sitemeter. Whoever sends us the most traffic gets a weekly or better link as his or her charechter appears. All participants will be named to the Presidents Economic Board of Advisers. Think of it- you and Volcker hanging out at the fed-- Rahm
In spite of all the misspellings, (doesn't Barry know about spellcheck?)which normally puts me off, I visited his site and found it (if I ignore the misspellings) quite humorous.
I'm not sure how important it is to me to "get a character", or get a "weekly or better link", but I have to give him points for his marketing efforts.
So, for that unique marketing effort alone, I urge my few readers to visit Barry's site. I will recommend it for now, as long as it doesn't get too silly to endorse in the future.
Now, speaking of Barry... By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about his reference to The Special Olympics on last night's "Tonight Show", with Jay Leno:
(Listen closely after he mentions his 129 bowling score)
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that his remark was simply intended as self-deprecating humor, and not a veiled, understated slur of the mentally handicapped. I've said worse on occasion.
But then, I'm not the President.
This same man (and his devoted followers)who pretends to be offended at the slightest hint of an insensitive remark should know better than to let slip any comment that could be interpreted by the ever-increasing super thin-skinned segment of our population as so egregious and condescending.
He should know one can't make any kind of remark that might offend anyone.
I have a special needs child myself, but I wasn't particularly offended by his remark. I'm just not as thin-skinned as some.
It could have been simply an unfortunate, naive, less-than-sensitive joke, with no bad intentions, but it could have been (and most likely was) a glimpse into the true character of this lying fraud who pretends to be a hero to the oppressed, underprivileged, and downtrodden.
He's been in office for less than 60 days and already he has embarrassed himself and the office of President several times.
Obama is the real joke.
Yesterday, I received the following announcement in my e-mail:
Being from Illinois, I understand politics- It's a pay for play world. As such, I, President Barry O, has a deal for you. Not as good as an AIG exec, but pretty good none the less.
In an effort to reach out to my fellow Americans, I have launched my very own secret blog. Problem is, it's too secret. So Rahm had a great idea. I should offer a primo adviser gig to whoever sends us the must hits. I don't understand what that means, but Ram runs the show around here- so the offer stands. The link is http://presidentbarryo.blogspot.com/
President Berry O
What this means is whoever sends us the most traffic gets a charechter named after them. Mention us in a post, refering traffic to us, and we will count up the referals from sitemeter. Whoever sends us the most traffic gets a weekly or better link as his or her charechter appears. All participants will be named to the Presidents Economic Board of Advisers. Think of it- you and Volcker hanging out at the fed-- Rahm
In spite of all the misspellings, (doesn't Barry know about spellcheck?)which normally puts me off, I visited his site and found it (if I ignore the misspellings) quite humorous.
I'm not sure how important it is to me to "get a character", or get a "weekly or better link", but I have to give him points for his marketing efforts.
So, for that unique marketing effort alone, I urge my few readers to visit Barry's site. I will recommend it for now, as long as it doesn't get too silly to endorse in the future.
Now, speaking of Barry... By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about his reference to The Special Olympics on last night's "Tonight Show", with Jay Leno:
(Listen closely after he mentions his 129 bowling score)
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that his remark was simply intended as self-deprecating humor, and not a veiled, understated slur of the mentally handicapped. I've said worse on occasion.
But then, I'm not the President.
This same man (and his devoted followers)who pretends to be offended at the slightest hint of an insensitive remark should know better than to let slip any comment that could be interpreted by the ever-increasing super thin-skinned segment of our population as so egregious and condescending.
He should know one can't make any kind of remark that might offend anyone.
I have a special needs child myself, but I wasn't particularly offended by his remark. I'm just not as thin-skinned as some.
It could have been simply an unfortunate, naive, less-than-sensitive joke, with no bad intentions, but it could have been (and most likely was) a glimpse into the true character of this lying fraud who pretends to be a hero to the oppressed, underprivileged, and downtrodden.
He's been in office for less than 60 days and already he has embarrassed himself and the office of President several times.
Obama is the real joke.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bonuses For Failure
"There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." ~ Chester Bowles
When I was in mid-level management for a national corporation (now defunct), the company had a payroll system that included a base salary, commissions, perks, and a bonus system.
The bonuses were based on achievement. If we did our jobs exceptionally well, we received bonuses, the amounts of which were directly affected by going over our established quotas. We had a monthly bonus system, and a quarterly bonus system, and a yearly bonus system. We had what we called a monthly, quarterly, and yearly TSQ (Targeted sales quota)that we had to surpass in order to be eligible for a bonus.
I said, "surpass".
That means, the amount of the bonus was determined by the percentage of earnings over the TSQ. If I went ten percent over TSQ, for example, I received a bonus commiserate with that overage. Fifteen percent garnered me a graduated bonus accordingly. And so on.
Many of the other managers made six figure salaries when their various bonuses were figured in by the end of the year. Of course, they were regional and district managers. I never rose above department manager. Although I did manage to receive some monthly, and a couple of quarterly bonuses in my thirteen years in the business, I never made six figures in a year. I also earned a couple of incentive trips. One a Carribean cruise, and one to the Ixtapa resort in Mexico. Plus a nomination for one national award, in which I finished second in the company.
But I digress.
All of a sudden, the upper management employees of AIG are on the hot seat for receiving bonuses, ostensibly paid for by us, the American taxpayers.
Now, I don't understand this at all. Why are any employees of AIG receiving bonuses in the first place? They lost money.
What kind of company rewards bonuses for failure?
Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd are now sanctimoniously decrying the payment of these bonuses, as well they should, since they were two of the most vocal in favor of authorizing the bail-out of the financially ailing AIG.
But their protestations ring hollow.
Dodd and Obama are the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG. Dodd received the most campaign donations and Obama ran a close second.
And now, we find out that Dodd is the Senator who inserted, in the bail-out bill, the exception that authorized the payment of these bonuses.
Now, of course, he's saying he didn't.
He is saying he doesn't know how that exception got into the bill. If we are to believe Dodd (who, of course, has nothing to gain from lying about his role in the current scandal), the provision to go ahead and pay bonuses somehow magically appeared in the bill without authorship.
I have heard rumors that the bonuses awarded to the AIG executives were specified in their current contracts. Perhaps this is true, but once again, what kind of company would agree to terms with employees to go ahead and pay bonuses when they lose money?
My own contracts specifically provided for bonuses if I surpassed the TSQ on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. Nowhere was there any clause that directed the company to pay me extra if I failed to achieve my goal. The only bonus I would have received in that case would have been to keep my job.
If AIG agreed to pay their executives huge bonuses for losing money and driving the company to the brink of bankruptcy, it was a stupid agreement, and they don't deserve to be bailed out.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
In a free market system, there is no valid reason for the government to bailout any company, regardless of the circumstances. It is not the governments job to save irresponsible businesses.
If they fail, that is the price they pay for overspending and poor management.
Now Obama and Dodd have gotten us into this mess, from which there seems to be little hope of recovery.
And why?
I don't know.
But, if they've done it because of some kind of perceived obligation to AIG and other companies in return for their generous contributions to their respective campaigns, Obama should be impeached and Dodd should be jailed.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, anyway. AIG sent billions of that bail-out money to foreign banks. The bail-out money paid in bonuses for incompetent employees at AIG is a merely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money sent to other countries.
This whole thing reeks of incompetency, graft, malfeasance, and scandal.
We must recall all monies handed out to all the various recipients of all bail-out money. We must rein in this incompetent and irresponsible government.
We must stop the bleeding.
UPDATE: Apparently, Chris Dodd has abandoned his previous defense that someone sneaked that provision into the Omnibus bill. According to NewsMax:
WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
OK, so I will allow the Judge to reduce his sentence, and, if Dodd is telling the truth (finally), Obama should go to jail, too.
When I was in mid-level management for a national corporation (now defunct), the company had a payroll system that included a base salary, commissions, perks, and a bonus system.
The bonuses were based on achievement. If we did our jobs exceptionally well, we received bonuses, the amounts of which were directly affected by going over our established quotas. We had a monthly bonus system, and a quarterly bonus system, and a yearly bonus system. We had what we called a monthly, quarterly, and yearly TSQ (Targeted sales quota)that we had to surpass in order to be eligible for a bonus.
I said, "surpass".
That means, the amount of the bonus was determined by the percentage of earnings over the TSQ. If I went ten percent over TSQ, for example, I received a bonus commiserate with that overage. Fifteen percent garnered me a graduated bonus accordingly. And so on.
Many of the other managers made six figure salaries when their various bonuses were figured in by the end of the year. Of course, they were regional and district managers. I never rose above department manager. Although I did manage to receive some monthly, and a couple of quarterly bonuses in my thirteen years in the business, I never made six figures in a year. I also earned a couple of incentive trips. One a Carribean cruise, and one to the Ixtapa resort in Mexico. Plus a nomination for one national award, in which I finished second in the company.
But I digress.
All of a sudden, the upper management employees of AIG are on the hot seat for receiving bonuses, ostensibly paid for by us, the American taxpayers.
Now, I don't understand this at all. Why are any employees of AIG receiving bonuses in the first place? They lost money.
What kind of company rewards bonuses for failure?
Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd are now sanctimoniously decrying the payment of these bonuses, as well they should, since they were two of the most vocal in favor of authorizing the bail-out of the financially ailing AIG.
But their protestations ring hollow.
Dodd and Obama are the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG. Dodd received the most campaign donations and Obama ran a close second.
And now, we find out that Dodd is the Senator who inserted, in the bail-out bill, the exception that authorized the payment of these bonuses.
Now, of course, he's saying he didn't.
He is saying he doesn't know how that exception got into the bill. If we are to believe Dodd (who, of course, has nothing to gain from lying about his role in the current scandal), the provision to go ahead and pay bonuses somehow magically appeared in the bill without authorship.
I have heard rumors that the bonuses awarded to the AIG executives were specified in their current contracts. Perhaps this is true, but once again, what kind of company would agree to terms with employees to go ahead and pay bonuses when they lose money?
My own contracts specifically provided for bonuses if I surpassed the TSQ on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. Nowhere was there any clause that directed the company to pay me extra if I failed to achieve my goal. The only bonus I would have received in that case would have been to keep my job.
If AIG agreed to pay their executives huge bonuses for losing money and driving the company to the brink of bankruptcy, it was a stupid agreement, and they don't deserve to be bailed out.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
In a free market system, there is no valid reason for the government to bailout any company, regardless of the circumstances. It is not the governments job to save irresponsible businesses.
If they fail, that is the price they pay for overspending and poor management.
Now Obama and Dodd have gotten us into this mess, from which there seems to be little hope of recovery.
And why?
I don't know.
But, if they've done it because of some kind of perceived obligation to AIG and other companies in return for their generous contributions to their respective campaigns, Obama should be impeached and Dodd should be jailed.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, anyway. AIG sent billions of that bail-out money to foreign banks. The bail-out money paid in bonuses for incompetent employees at AIG is a merely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money sent to other countries.
This whole thing reeks of incompetency, graft, malfeasance, and scandal.
We must recall all monies handed out to all the various recipients of all bail-out money. We must rein in this incompetent and irresponsible government.
We must stop the bleeding.
UPDATE: Apparently, Chris Dodd has abandoned his previous defense that someone sneaked that provision into the Omnibus bill. According to NewsMax:
WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
OK, so I will allow the Judge to reduce his sentence, and, if Dodd is telling the truth (finally), Obama should go to jail, too.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
St. Patricks Day
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." ~ Thomas Jefferson
St Patricks day should serve to remind us all of Ireland's struggle for independence.
The following video has nothing to do with St Patrick and everything to do with the indomitable Irish spirit. Because of the refusal of the Irish people to submit to the oppressive rule of England, Ireland is now an independent country. Centuries of oppression by the English resulted in bloody uprisings throughout Ireland's history.
This is true of all cultures.
Despotic rule always produces blood. Either because of revolt, or by the iron hand of the oppressors themselves.
Freedom is never free.
All world leaders, including Barack Hussein Obama, would do well to remember how far freedom loving peoples are willing to go to win and preserve their freedom.
No sacrifice is too great.
No prize more worthy.
St Patricks day should serve to remind us all of Ireland's struggle for independence.
The following video has nothing to do with St Patrick and everything to do with the indomitable Irish spirit. Because of the refusal of the Irish people to submit to the oppressive rule of England, Ireland is now an independent country. Centuries of oppression by the English resulted in bloody uprisings throughout Ireland's history.
This is true of all cultures.
Despotic rule always produces blood. Either because of revolt, or by the iron hand of the oppressors themselves.
Freedom is never free.
All world leaders, including Barack Hussein Obama, would do well to remember how far freedom loving peoples are willing to go to win and preserve their freedom.
No sacrifice is too great.
No prize more worthy.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Jackie Mason -- A Racist?
"By these things examine thyself. By whose rules am I acting; in whose name; in whose strength; in whose glory? What faith, humility, self-denial, and love of God and to man have there been in all my actions?" ~ Jackie Mason
Jackie Mason, the famous (or infamous, depending on one's particular ideology) comedian, is in trouble again. Apparently, he used a racial epithet when describing Barack Hussein Obama in his act on Saturday night.
What horrible racist insult did Mr. Mason utter that so inflames the media?
Disclaimer: The following word might be deemed offensive to race baiters, whites suffering from white guilt, and Liberals of every stripe.
The word that Mason used to describe Obama is, (drum roll, please) "SCHWARTZA".
Schwartza? What is Schwartza? According to the news reports, "Schwartza" is a Yiddish term, meaning...Wait for it...."Black".
Black? Wait a minute. Isn't black the very description of Obama that Liberals celebrate? Isn't that the singular trait that Obama's adoring followers believe makes him qualified to be President in the first place?
It couldn't be his policies. No one had any idea what his policies were on election day. He obviously wasn't elected because of his policies.
It couldn't be his verbosity. He demonstrated continually that he couldn't make a speech without relying heavily on a teleprompter.
It couldn't be his beliefs. He made it a point to make absolutely sure we didn't equate his beliefs with the beliefs of any of his mentors, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or with his heroes, such as Cesar Chavez and Saul Alinsky, or with his friends, such as Bill Ayres and Tony Rezco. If he didn't share their beliefs, we have no clue as to what he really does believe.
Except that he's a Marxist.
After the election, the only positives the media could say about him was that he isn't Bush, and is the first black president. Indeed, as early as last Friday, I heard Chris Matthews say (with his own mouth, no less)that Obama is black.
Why isn't Chris Matthews being persecuted for being a racist? Didn't he, in essence, say the exact same thing? What's the difference?
How is it that Jackie Mason is now labeled a racist for merely stating an obvious fact about the duck in chief?
It's no secret that Jackie Mason is a Conservative. It's also no secret that Obama and his followers don't like Conservatives. So, could it be that those who pretend to be offended by Jackie Mason's words are simply over-reacting, and intentionally trying to create a scandal where no scandal exists?
The fact is, Jackie Mason is an equal opportunity offender.
I once saw a comedy special featuring Jackie Mason when he made several ethnic jokes and didn't manage to offend anyone. I remember specifically him saying, "I have great respect for the black man in this country, Could you buy a Cadillac with no job?"
The blacks in his audience didn't complain or walk out in disgust. They laughed.
I know the real objection to Jackie Mason's remark: He was referring to Barack Hussein Obama. We all know it is heresy to say anything even remotely critical of Obama. He can call a black man a black man. He can call a Jew a Jew. He can call an Italian an Italian.
But if he calls Obama a black man, he is a racist. But that isn't the only reason he's a racist. Oh, no. He is a racist because he's a Conservative that calls Obama a black man.
And that, my friends, is unforgivable.
Jackie Mason, the famous (or infamous, depending on one's particular ideology) comedian, is in trouble again. Apparently, he used a racial epithet when describing Barack Hussein Obama in his act on Saturday night.
What horrible racist insult did Mr. Mason utter that so inflames the media?
Disclaimer: The following word might be deemed offensive to race baiters, whites suffering from white guilt, and Liberals of every stripe.
The word that Mason used to describe Obama is, (drum roll, please) "SCHWARTZA".
Schwartza? What is Schwartza? According to the news reports, "Schwartza" is a Yiddish term, meaning...Wait for it...."Black".
Black? Wait a minute. Isn't black the very description of Obama that Liberals celebrate? Isn't that the singular trait that Obama's adoring followers believe makes him qualified to be President in the first place?
It couldn't be his policies. No one had any idea what his policies were on election day. He obviously wasn't elected because of his policies.
It couldn't be his verbosity. He demonstrated continually that he couldn't make a speech without relying heavily on a teleprompter.
It couldn't be his beliefs. He made it a point to make absolutely sure we didn't equate his beliefs with the beliefs of any of his mentors, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or with his heroes, such as Cesar Chavez and Saul Alinsky, or with his friends, such as Bill Ayres and Tony Rezco. If he didn't share their beliefs, we have no clue as to what he really does believe.
Except that he's a Marxist.
After the election, the only positives the media could say about him was that he isn't Bush, and is the first black president. Indeed, as early as last Friday, I heard Chris Matthews say (with his own mouth, no less)that Obama is black.
Why isn't Chris Matthews being persecuted for being a racist? Didn't he, in essence, say the exact same thing? What's the difference?
How is it that Jackie Mason is now labeled a racist for merely stating an obvious fact about the duck in chief?
It's no secret that Jackie Mason is a Conservative. It's also no secret that Obama and his followers don't like Conservatives. So, could it be that those who pretend to be offended by Jackie Mason's words are simply over-reacting, and intentionally trying to create a scandal where no scandal exists?
The fact is, Jackie Mason is an equal opportunity offender.
I once saw a comedy special featuring Jackie Mason when he made several ethnic jokes and didn't manage to offend anyone. I remember specifically him saying, "I have great respect for the black man in this country, Could you buy a Cadillac with no job?"
The blacks in his audience didn't complain or walk out in disgust. They laughed.
I know the real objection to Jackie Mason's remark: He was referring to Barack Hussein Obama. We all know it is heresy to say anything even remotely critical of Obama. He can call a black man a black man. He can call a Jew a Jew. He can call an Italian an Italian.
But if he calls Obama a black man, he is a racist. But that isn't the only reason he's a racist. Oh, no. He is a racist because he's a Conservative that calls Obama a black man.
And that, my friends, is unforgivable.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Making Use Of Free Market Health Care (For Now)
"A Hospital is no place to be sick." ~ Samuel Goldwyn
I spent Monday shopping and taking my wife out to eat to celebrate her birthday. Her Birthday was Tuesday, but we could not celebrate it that day, because she spent her birthday in the hospital, in Richmond, recovering from surgery to replace her right knee. She has a private room, so I was allowed to spend the night in her room, which, as it turns out, does not a restful night make. The hospital staff must have been in and out of that room 20 times during the night to prod, probe, stick, poke, and generally bother her, all the while disturbing my sleep as well. Imagine waking someone up to give them a sleeping pill!
Sounds like an Obama policy to me.
She will remain in the hospital probably until at least Saturday this week depending on how she heals.
I will be spending my time divided between work and the hospital. I will have little, if any time, for blogging. I haven't had time for blogging this week up until now. And I really don't have much time for blogging today. I have to go into my office to do some paperwork, and then out to Ashburn, VA to work tonight.
Richmond to Ashburn is about a 140 mile swing. And then back to Fredericksburg, another 65 miles or so.
Tomorrow morning, I will probably drive back to Richmond to spend some time visiting my wife.
Sheesh! I'm tired already!
Oh well, it could be worse.
If she had waited about a year or so to have this surgery, due to Obama's health care plan, (modeled on Canada's and/or Great Britain's plan) she likely would have had to wait a couple of more years just to get in, and then possibly still be turned down because Obama's health care Czar would decide whether or not her procedure was a necessity.
Anyway, now you know why I am not blogging this week. If you wondered.
So, don't abandon me yet. I shall return.
I spent Monday shopping and taking my wife out to eat to celebrate her birthday. Her Birthday was Tuesday, but we could not celebrate it that day, because she spent her birthday in the hospital, in Richmond, recovering from surgery to replace her right knee. She has a private room, so I was allowed to spend the night in her room, which, as it turns out, does not a restful night make. The hospital staff must have been in and out of that room 20 times during the night to prod, probe, stick, poke, and generally bother her, all the while disturbing my sleep as well. Imagine waking someone up to give them a sleeping pill!
Sounds like an Obama policy to me.
She will remain in the hospital probably until at least Saturday this week depending on how she heals.
I will be spending my time divided between work and the hospital. I will have little, if any time, for blogging. I haven't had time for blogging this week up until now. And I really don't have much time for blogging today. I have to go into my office to do some paperwork, and then out to Ashburn, VA to work tonight.
Richmond to Ashburn is about a 140 mile swing. And then back to Fredericksburg, another 65 miles or so.
Tomorrow morning, I will probably drive back to Richmond to spend some time visiting my wife.
Sheesh! I'm tired already!
Oh well, it could be worse.
If she had waited about a year or so to have this surgery, due to Obama's health care plan, (modeled on Canada's and/or Great Britain's plan) she likely would have had to wait a couple of more years just to get in, and then possibly still be turned down because Obama's health care Czar would decide whether or not her procedure was a necessity.
Anyway, now you know why I am not blogging this week. If you wondered.
So, don't abandon me yet. I shall return.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Victory In Iraq
(with original artwork by yours truly)
"Victory belongs to the most persevering." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
The scene is an underground room buried somewhere deep within the mountains of Afghanistan.The room is nearly bare except for two metal folding chairs located directly in front of a long folding table littered with newspapers, both American and Middle Eastern. On the wall, directly behind the table, is a bank of television monitors tuned to various news programs originating from stations all around the world. Al-Jezeera, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and even FOX news, etc.
Achmed sits at the table, poring over news reports from The United States.
Abdul enters, stage right.
Abdul: Praise Allah, and Mohammad his holy Prophet! What news, Achmed, my friend?
Achmed: All praise and glory to our great and wonderful Allah! Abdul, I have very good news! Allah has blessed us for all our hard work in our holy jihad against the infidels!
Abdul: Allah be praised! What good news, if you please?
Achmed: The wonderful and merciful Allah has granted us, by His grace, an extended vacation! We can take the next 18 months off, to recuperate and regroup.
Abdul: Praise indeed to our Holy God, Allah, who has honored us with this wonderful sabbatical! Which of our relentless attacks against the infidel has earned us this highest of honors?
Achmed: All praise to Allah, for His mercy and Judgment! Allah is great and knows all, for he has provided us an ally in American government, who has at last rewarded us for our effort and announced America's surrender!
Abdul: Praise Allah! What ally is this, my friend and battle mate?
Achmed: All honor and praise to the great Allah! Our new American ally is none other than the new American President, Barack Hussein Obama! He has announced he will remove the infidel armies from Iraq! And, praise be to Allah, he has told even us when they will leave!
Abdul: Allah has answered our prayers! Praise be forever to Allah and death to His enemies! When will the infidels leave, my friend?
Achmed: Allah shall be praised indeed, Abdul, The American President has announced that he will withdraw the troops by August of next year!
Abdul: Allah has surely provided us a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but why, after all this time, do we have to wait so long to take our much deserved vacation?
Achmed: Praise Allah! That's the best part, my friend! We no longer have to wait to take vacation! Now that we know the definite date of our victory, we can relax now, take our vacation now, and wait until then. Then, we can renew our efforts unimpeded by the infidels.
Abdul: Allah is great! I get it now, my friend! All we need to do now is lay back and wait until the Americans think we have stopped fighting, and then, when they finally pull out, we can renew the fight with renewed vigor! We will destroy Israel and all the infidels! Praise Allah! We have won!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
"Victory belongs to the most persevering." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
The scene is an underground room buried somewhere deep within the mountains of Afghanistan.The room is nearly bare except for two metal folding chairs located directly in front of a long folding table littered with newspapers, both American and Middle Eastern. On the wall, directly behind the table, is a bank of television monitors tuned to various news programs originating from stations all around the world. Al-Jezeera, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and even FOX news, etc.
Achmed sits at the table, poring over news reports from The United States.
Abdul enters, stage right.
Abdul: Praise Allah, and Mohammad his holy Prophet! What news, Achmed, my friend?
Achmed: All praise and glory to our great and wonderful Allah! Abdul, I have very good news! Allah has blessed us for all our hard work in our holy jihad against the infidels!
Abdul: Allah be praised! What good news, if you please?
Achmed: The wonderful and merciful Allah has granted us, by His grace, an extended vacation! We can take the next 18 months off, to recuperate and regroup.
Abdul: Praise indeed to our Holy God, Allah, who has honored us with this wonderful sabbatical! Which of our relentless attacks against the infidel has earned us this highest of honors?
Achmed: All praise to Allah, for His mercy and Judgment! Allah is great and knows all, for he has provided us an ally in American government, who has at last rewarded us for our effort and announced America's surrender!
Abdul: Praise Allah! What ally is this, my friend and battle mate?
Achmed: All honor and praise to the great Allah! Our new American ally is none other than the new American President, Barack Hussein Obama! He has announced he will remove the infidel armies from Iraq! And, praise be to Allah, he has told even us when they will leave!
Abdul: Allah has answered our prayers! Praise be forever to Allah and death to His enemies! When will the infidels leave, my friend?
Achmed: Allah shall be praised indeed, Abdul, The American President has announced that he will withdraw the troops by August of next year!
Abdul: Allah has surely provided us a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but why, after all this time, do we have to wait so long to take our much deserved vacation?
Achmed: Praise Allah! That's the best part, my friend! We no longer have to wait to take vacation! Now that we know the definite date of our victory, we can relax now, take our vacation now, and wait until then. Then, we can renew our efforts unimpeded by the infidels.
Abdul: Allah is great! I get it now, my friend! All we need to do now is lay back and wait until the Americans think we have stopped fighting, and then, when they finally pull out, we can renew the fight with renewed vigor! We will destroy Israel and all the infidels! Praise Allah! We have won!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Fashionable Obama
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" ~ Barack Obama
Google "Michelle Obama sleeveless dresses" and you'll come up with 38,300 hits, and that's only those exact words.
Most of the sites that address this subject are complaining about Ms Obama's lack of fashion sense. Well, since I have no fashion sense of my own, I'll take their word for it.
When her husband, B. Hussein Obama, was asked about Michelle's seeming fashion faux pas, He demonstrated his superior knowledge of Constitutional law by replying, "I don't see what all the fuss is about. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee us the right to bare arms?"
He must be right. After all, he is a Constitutional law professor.
Google "Michelle Obama sleeveless dresses" and you'll come up with 38,300 hits, and that's only those exact words.
Most of the sites that address this subject are complaining about Ms Obama's lack of fashion sense. Well, since I have no fashion sense of my own, I'll take their word for it.
When her husband, B. Hussein Obama, was asked about Michelle's seeming fashion faux pas, He demonstrated his superior knowledge of Constitutional law by replying, "I don't see what all the fuss is about. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee us the right to bare arms?"
He must be right. After all, he is a Constitutional law professor.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Simple Minds Think Alike, Too
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein
The reason I haven't posted lately is because the majority of news stories lately have been about Obama's stimulus package. I haven't found much else worthy of comment.
And I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert on economics.
I have been trying to make sense of this whole thing, and I have to admit, I can't. I have been trying to view this stimulus package through the eyes of Obama's supporters to ascertain exactly why they support it, when it looks like sheer madness to me. I am reminded of a saying on a key chain I once saw:
"I am trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
I fail to see how it could ever work, even in a fantasy world.
Here is something I've learned in my fifty-seven years of struggling to make a living:
If you don't have any money, you can't solve the problem by spending more.
Of course, I never had the advantage of being able to legally print up more money when the existing funds run out.
Still, even with that advantage, I fail to see how even the most simple minded could think this plan will work.
Well, Obama is nothing if not simple minded, apparently.
The reason I haven't posted lately is because the majority of news stories lately have been about Obama's stimulus package. I haven't found much else worthy of comment.
And I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert on economics.
I have been trying to make sense of this whole thing, and I have to admit, I can't. I have been trying to view this stimulus package through the eyes of Obama's supporters to ascertain exactly why they support it, when it looks like sheer madness to me. I am reminded of a saying on a key chain I once saw:
"I am trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
I fail to see how it could ever work, even in a fantasy world.
Here is something I've learned in my fifty-seven years of struggling to make a living:
If you don't have any money, you can't solve the problem by spending more.
Of course, I never had the advantage of being able to legally print up more money when the existing funds run out.
Still, even with that advantage, I fail to see how even the most simple minded could think this plan will work.
Well, Obama is nothing if not simple minded, apparently.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Obama's Questionable Citizenship
"The present occupant of the White House assumed residence while refusing to provide credible evidence that he is in fact constitutionally qualified to serve as President." ~ Alan Keyes
One of the big controversies that just won't seem to go away concerning Barack Hussein Obama is the one about his citizenship, and thus, his qualification to be President of the United States.
Dr. Alan Keyes is one of many who have filed suit alleging Obama is not an American citizen.
If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States as some have charged, is he qualified to be President or not?
I have said I have always thought as long as one has at least one parent who is an American citizen, one is considered a naturally born American citizen and that should settle the issue, but upon researching what the Constitution actually has to say about it, I can now see why there is some confusion.
From Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
What constitutes a “natural born” Citizen?
For that, we have to look at the fourteenth Amendment, to wit:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That's it. That's all it says. That doesn't yet tell us everything we need to know, does it?
A President cannot be a naturalized citizen. He must be “natural born”, but the Constitution does not specify exactly what defines “natural born“.
I had always believed one only had to be born of at least one parent who is an American citizen, no matter what country he was born in to be a natural born American citizen, but the Constitution makes no such specification.
So, there must be a more specific definition of what constitutes an American citizen somewhere, shouldn't there?.
There is. In the U.S. Code.
According to the U.S. Code § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(this provision covers Sen. John McCain's qualification, regardless of what the Liberals say)
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
I don’t know if some of these provisions apply to Obama’s qualifications to be President, but, at least one of them would, regardless. Unless Obama’s mother didn’t satisfy the requirements pertaining to the length of continuous time spent in the United States, and that, I don’t know.
Q.E.D. It would appear that Obama is indeed a natural born American citizen, his suspect forged “certificate of live birth” notwithstanding.
If we need legal justification for removing Obama from the Presidency (and I believe he needs to be removed), it might be better to read further into the fourteenth amendment. There does appear to be a justification for questioning the qualifications of Obama to be President, to wit:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Obama has absolutely offered aid and comfort to America’s enemies with his overtures to Hamas and Iran, and his seeming commitment to facilitating further terrorists attacks on America, by dismantling the safeguards set up by the Bush administration, and cutting the budget for the military.
That alone should disqualify him to be President, depending on how one interprets the phrase “aid or comfort”.
Of course, if the multiple lawsuits raising questions about Obama's citizenship are successful in removing him from office, I would be comfortable with that as well.
As long as he goes.
One of the big controversies that just won't seem to go away concerning Barack Hussein Obama is the one about his citizenship, and thus, his qualification to be President of the United States.
Dr. Alan Keyes is one of many who have filed suit alleging Obama is not an American citizen.
If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States as some have charged, is he qualified to be President or not?
I have said I have always thought as long as one has at least one parent who is an American citizen, one is considered a naturally born American citizen and that should settle the issue, but upon researching what the Constitution actually has to say about it, I can now see why there is some confusion.
From Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
What constitutes a “natural born” Citizen?
For that, we have to look at the fourteenth Amendment, to wit:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That's it. That's all it says. That doesn't yet tell us everything we need to know, does it?
A President cannot be a naturalized citizen. He must be “natural born”, but the Constitution does not specify exactly what defines “natural born“.
I had always believed one only had to be born of at least one parent who is an American citizen, no matter what country he was born in to be a natural born American citizen, but the Constitution makes no such specification.
So, there must be a more specific definition of what constitutes an American citizen somewhere, shouldn't there?.
There is. In the U.S. Code.
According to the U.S. Code § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(this provision covers Sen. John McCain's qualification, regardless of what the Liberals say)
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
I don’t know if some of these provisions apply to Obama’s qualifications to be President, but, at least one of them would, regardless. Unless Obama’s mother didn’t satisfy the requirements pertaining to the length of continuous time spent in the United States, and that, I don’t know.
Q.E.D. It would appear that Obama is indeed a natural born American citizen, his suspect forged “certificate of live birth” notwithstanding.
If we need legal justification for removing Obama from the Presidency (and I believe he needs to be removed), it might be better to read further into the fourteenth amendment. There does appear to be a justification for questioning the qualifications of Obama to be President, to wit:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Obama has absolutely offered aid and comfort to America’s enemies with his overtures to Hamas and Iran, and his seeming commitment to facilitating further terrorists attacks on America, by dismantling the safeguards set up by the Bush administration, and cutting the budget for the military.
That alone should disqualify him to be President, depending on how one interprets the phrase “aid or comfort”.
Of course, if the multiple lawsuits raising questions about Obama's citizenship are successful in removing him from office, I would be comfortable with that as well.
As long as he goes.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Lunatic Has Taken Over The Asylum
"I won" ~ Barrack Hussein Obama
I read this piece over at Trader Rick's blog. Rick often posts things he received through e-mail. At first, I did nothing with it. Often times, things sent through e-mail are simply not true. So, I initially dismissed it, thinking it either wasn't important, or worse, not factual.
But, I couldn't get it out of my mind. So I looked up Dr. Samuel Vaknin on Google and found a wealth of information about him. He is what he portrays himself to be. An expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He knows what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: This entire article was not written by Dr. Vaknin. Only the parts in italics are actual quotes from Dr. Vaknin. He is not a Doctor of Psychology, but he has written several books and papers on the subject of narcissism. The author of the article referenced by the e-mail, on Trader Rick's blog, that was quoted in the e-mail, as it has been pointed out, is Ali Sina.
Dr. Vaknin States:
"I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness, but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi 'religious' impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming...
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "The Malignant Self Love" believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.
Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children - was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin.
"Mixed-race marriages were even less common, then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing Personality that it overwhelms those around them.
Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. (remember how Obama ignored the victims of last month's ice storm in the south?)
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father." Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why?
Because his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.
What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today, the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
The great majority of blacks have also voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster - I predict he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades.
America is the bastion of freedom.
The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America - are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
This is an important revelation. I believe Obama is as dangerous to America as Hitler was to Germany, as Stalin was to Russia, as Chairman Mao was to China, etc.
If he is allowed to continue to manipulate America and Americans so recklessly unchecked he will destroy America.
h/t: Trader Rick
I read this piece over at Trader Rick's blog. Rick often posts things he received through e-mail. At first, I did nothing with it. Often times, things sent through e-mail are simply not true. So, I initially dismissed it, thinking it either wasn't important, or worse, not factual.
But, I couldn't get it out of my mind. So I looked up Dr. Samuel Vaknin on Google and found a wealth of information about him. He is what he portrays himself to be. An expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He knows what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: This entire article was not written by Dr. Vaknin. Only the parts in italics are actual quotes from Dr. Vaknin. He is not a Doctor of Psychology, but he has written several books and papers on the subject of narcissism. The author of the article referenced by the e-mail, on Trader Rick's blog, that was quoted in the e-mail, as it has been pointed out, is Ali Sina.
Dr. Vaknin States:
"I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness, but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi 'religious' impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming...
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "The Malignant Self Love" believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.
Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children - was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin.
"Mixed-race marriages were even less common, then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing Personality that it overwhelms those around them.
Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. (remember how Obama ignored the victims of last month's ice storm in the south?)
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father." Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why?
Because his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.
What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today, the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
The great majority of blacks have also voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster - I predict he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades.
America is the bastion of freedom.
The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America - are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
This is an important revelation. I believe Obama is as dangerous to America as Hitler was to Germany, as Stalin was to Russia, as Chairman Mao was to China, etc.
If he is allowed to continue to manipulate America and Americans so recklessly unchecked he will destroy America.
h/t: Trader Rick
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Blog Addition
"I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect." ~ Dr. Alan Keyes
I've just added another blog to my blogroll. It is hosted by Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the UN, and (at least) two time unsuccessful candidate for President. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Keyes, and would have voted for him for President years ago if I thought he had any viable solutions. By that I mean, he was dead on in diagnosing what was wrong with American politics and ideologies, but he didn't seem to know what to do to solve them. At least, he failed to offer solutions to the problems. In short, he had plenty of thought provoking questions but not enough answers to win my vote.
Be that as it may, Dr. Keyes has a clear view of what is wrong with the Obama administration and Liberal politics in general.
Dr. Keyes is also one of many plantiffs in lawsuits brought that seek definite proof of Obama's citizenship in regard to his qualifications to serve as President of these United States of America.
Personally, I believe Obama is a legal citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born to an American citizen, his mother. There is no doubt she was a citizen, so by law, he is also an American citizen. Like it or not.
I don't always agree with Dr. Keyes on some issues, but I deeply respect and admire the man for his dedication to Liberty. And, I believe he is sincere, a quality rarely seen in politicians today.
Please visit his site.
I've just added another blog to my blogroll. It is hosted by Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the UN, and (at least) two time unsuccessful candidate for President. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Keyes, and would have voted for him for President years ago if I thought he had any viable solutions. By that I mean, he was dead on in diagnosing what was wrong with American politics and ideologies, but he didn't seem to know what to do to solve them. At least, he failed to offer solutions to the problems. In short, he had plenty of thought provoking questions but not enough answers to win my vote.
Be that as it may, Dr. Keyes has a clear view of what is wrong with the Obama administration and Liberal politics in general.
Dr. Keyes is also one of many plantiffs in lawsuits brought that seek definite proof of Obama's citizenship in regard to his qualifications to serve as President of these United States of America.
Personally, I believe Obama is a legal citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born to an American citizen, his mother. There is no doubt she was a citizen, so by law, he is also an American citizen. Like it or not.
I don't always agree with Dr. Keyes on some issues, but I deeply respect and admire the man for his dedication to Liberty. And, I believe he is sincere, a quality rarely seen in politicians today.
Please visit his site.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Fifty-Two Per Cent
"They think we're stupid". ~ Laura Ingraham
That opening statement from Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing" has never been better demonstrated than it is now with Barack Hussein Obama.
On Election day, last November, 52% (reportedly) of Americans proved Obama was at least partially correct. Apparently, at least 52% of Americans really are stupid.
They voted for Obama despite all the evidence that he has no experience, no substance, no pride in America, and no qualifications. And yet 52% believed he was preferable to a genuine American hero.
He has demonstrated for years that he is a Marxist, and that he intends to create a Marxist state of the United States, but still 52% of Americans voted for him.
All the evidence was there in his questionable associations, his grandiose promises of "hope and change", while offering no glimpse of how he was going to accomplish these miracles, plus, most Conservatives such as myself, warned Americans that he is a danger to the American way of life, but to no avail. 52% ignored the warnings and the evidence.
He relied heavily on his belief that most Americans are willfully uninformed. And 52% of them obviously are.
Now that he is ensconced as President, we are witnessing the Socialization of America right before our very eyes in the form of this so-called stimulus bill.
They (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc) trumpeted the benefits of this bill, citing the creation of millions of jobs, and the free flow of money into our economy that somehow was going to kick start the faltering economy and get it up and running like a well-oiled machine again.
Now, the language of his adoring minions in the media has changed somewhat. Now, they are saying the bill will create or "save" millions of existing jobs.
Note the subtle change. Now, maybe the bill won't actually create jobs. Now, maybe it will only save existing jobs. Maybe it will do both. Maybe it will do neither. None of us can be sure.
But, we are being asked to throw caution to the winds and blindly accept this concept, which is a crap shoot at best.
One thing I'm sure of, is that our nation, if this bill is implemented, will become a Communist collective, and our freedom and liberties will fall by the wayside. Once Obama gets to decide who gets what, there will be no stopping him. He will create an obligation in us to which we must acquiesce.
"If I give you x amount of money, you must in turn, do as I say. That is the price of my generosity".
His goal is complete, total, control.
That opening statement from Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing" has never been better demonstrated than it is now with Barack Hussein Obama.
On Election day, last November, 52% (reportedly) of Americans proved Obama was at least partially correct. Apparently, at least 52% of Americans really are stupid.
They voted for Obama despite all the evidence that he has no experience, no substance, no pride in America, and no qualifications. And yet 52% believed he was preferable to a genuine American hero.
He has demonstrated for years that he is a Marxist, and that he intends to create a Marxist state of the United States, but still 52% of Americans voted for him.
All the evidence was there in his questionable associations, his grandiose promises of "hope and change", while offering no glimpse of how he was going to accomplish these miracles, plus, most Conservatives such as myself, warned Americans that he is a danger to the American way of life, but to no avail. 52% ignored the warnings and the evidence.
He relied heavily on his belief that most Americans are willfully uninformed. And 52% of them obviously are.
Now that he is ensconced as President, we are witnessing the Socialization of America right before our very eyes in the form of this so-called stimulus bill.
They (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc) trumpeted the benefits of this bill, citing the creation of millions of jobs, and the free flow of money into our economy that somehow was going to kick start the faltering economy and get it up and running like a well-oiled machine again.
Now, the language of his adoring minions in the media has changed somewhat. Now, they are saying the bill will create or "save" millions of existing jobs.
Note the subtle change. Now, maybe the bill won't actually create jobs. Now, maybe it will only save existing jobs. Maybe it will do both. Maybe it will do neither. None of us can be sure.
But, we are being asked to throw caution to the winds and blindly accept this concept, which is a crap shoot at best.
One thing I'm sure of, is that our nation, if this bill is implemented, will become a Communist collective, and our freedom and liberties will fall by the wayside. Once Obama gets to decide who gets what, there will be no stopping him. He will create an obligation in us to which we must acquiesce.
"If I give you x amount of money, you must in turn, do as I say. That is the price of my generosity".
His goal is complete, total, control.
Why don't Obama's fawning supporters see what he's doing? With this bill, he is in effect taking over control of every business in America. He will set the prices on goods and services. He will decide how much the workers earn. He will decide how much and what we can buy for our families. He will kill some industries such as oil and coal. He will dismantle our military. He will repeal the legislation that has kept us safe from terrorists attacks since 9/11. He will legitimize infanticide. He will ban the ownership of any type of firearm. He will squelch any speech that voices opposition to him or his policies.
The wheels are already in motion to accomplish those last two.
From there, it is a small step to re-education camps, forced labor, abolishing all dissension, purges, executions, and "dictator for life".
Fasten your seat belts. We're in for a bumpy ride. But, this time, we may not survive.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My Stimulus Plan
"There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." ~ Chester Bowles
I might have missed it, or maybe the media isn't covering it out of embarrassment or something, but I believe Barack Hussein Obama's so-called stimulus bill has yet to pass the Senate.
It really doesn't matter if it has or hasn't. Since nobody who can make an actual difference reads this blog anyway, I can go ahead and offer my plan for stimulating the economy.
Perhaps the damage has already been done, but I'm going to offer my poorly thought out economic stimulus plan anyway:
As long as Obama's adoring Liberal Democrat lawmakers are going to allocate spending around 1.2 trillion dollars anyway, I think I have a better idea as to who should receive the money than the various pork projects currently being considered.
Give it directly to the American people. Simple as that.
There are approximately 305,787,883 people in the United States now, a little more since I started writing this post.
That's $3,934.00 more or less for every man, woman, and child in America. Now, everyone has almost $4,000.00 to do whatever they want to do with the money.
This should stimulate the economy.
We could buy things we need, or only want. We can get health care. We can get educations. We can collect fine works of art. We can pay our mortgage payments. We can build buildings. Or move into new buildings. Even if all we do is stick the money into a savings account and don't touch it for years.
The banks can use that money to pay their executive's salaries.
In short, we, as a people can use that money to accomplish everything Obama and his Democrat buddies want to accomplish. The only difference is, it will be accomplished freely and voluntarily by the American people, and not be extracted from our already light pockets by force.
Families with many children would get more than single people or families with no children. But that's how it should be, right? The more people in a family, the more money it takes to feed them. That money-grubbing woman in California who has multiple children merely to capitalize on Americans generosity will get $60,000.00.
That should keep her in diapers for a couple of years, leaving her welfare checks to buy food and clothing.
The rich will get $3900+. The poor will get $3900+. All God's children get $3900+.
I could get a used car in better shape than the one I currently drive. That helps the used car dealers. And, it helps me.
Best of all, this idea comes as close to Obama's Socialist idea of redistribution of wealth as we could ever hope.
The only way we could realize Obama's dream of a level playing field is to take all the money away from all the people first, and then divide it evenly among every man, woman, and child in America, but that would be problematic at best. Impossible at worst.
This idea is much simpler.
And if Obama has proven anything, it is that he is simple.
I might have missed it, or maybe the media isn't covering it out of embarrassment or something, but I believe Barack Hussein Obama's so-called stimulus bill has yet to pass the Senate.
It really doesn't matter if it has or hasn't. Since nobody who can make an actual difference reads this blog anyway, I can go ahead and offer my plan for stimulating the economy.
Perhaps the damage has already been done, but I'm going to offer my poorly thought out economic stimulus plan anyway:
As long as Obama's adoring Liberal Democrat lawmakers are going to allocate spending around 1.2 trillion dollars anyway, I think I have a better idea as to who should receive the money than the various pork projects currently being considered.
Give it directly to the American people. Simple as that.
There are approximately 305,787,883 people in the United States now, a little more since I started writing this post.
That's $3,934.00 more or less for every man, woman, and child in America. Now, everyone has almost $4,000.00 to do whatever they want to do with the money.
This should stimulate the economy.
We could buy things we need, or only want. We can get health care. We can get educations. We can collect fine works of art. We can pay our mortgage payments. We can build buildings. Or move into new buildings. Even if all we do is stick the money into a savings account and don't touch it for years.
The banks can use that money to pay their executive's salaries.
In short, we, as a people can use that money to accomplish everything Obama and his Democrat buddies want to accomplish. The only difference is, it will be accomplished freely and voluntarily by the American people, and not be extracted from our already light pockets by force.
Families with many children would get more than single people or families with no children. But that's how it should be, right? The more people in a family, the more money it takes to feed them. That money-grubbing woman in California who has multiple children merely to capitalize on Americans generosity will get $60,000.00.
That should keep her in diapers for a couple of years, leaving her welfare checks to buy food and clothing.
The rich will get $3900+. The poor will get $3900+. All God's children get $3900+.
I could get a used car in better shape than the one I currently drive. That helps the used car dealers. And, it helps me.
Best of all, this idea comes as close to Obama's Socialist idea of redistribution of wealth as we could ever hope.
The only way we could realize Obama's dream of a level playing field is to take all the money away from all the people first, and then divide it evenly among every man, woman, and child in America, but that would be problematic at best. Impossible at worst.
This idea is much simpler.
And if Obama has proven anything, it is that he is simple.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Frustration
"There is a New America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we will it or not." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
Monday, February 02, 2009
No Bail Out
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Comedy On NPR
"I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe." ~ Leo Rosten
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
