"If you wish to make a man look noble, your best course is to kill him. What superiority he may have inherited from his race, what superiority nature may have personally gifted him with, comes out in death." ~ Alexander Smith
So now, the other shoe has dropped and it is now confirmed that Barry Hussein Obama will be the Presidential nominee of the Democratic party.
As if we didn't see that coming.
But what of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Well, according to the Liberally biased AP, she refuses to concede, but has finally suggested she would be open to the vice presidential slot on Obama's ticket.
Of course, Hillary wants the VP slot. Vice President is a literal heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. For someone who we all know will stop at nothing to attain the presidency of the United States, it's common sense.
If she can't be President by election, she may have hopes of securing the office by succession.
What? Am I saying Hillary might carry out an assassination plot on her dear friend, B. Hussein, just to be President?
Not at all.
That, of course, is unthinkable.
But, if there is anybody in the world who is both capable and ambitious enough, it is the Clintons, Bill and Hillary. One only has to go back to the link Lone Ranger left in my comments section a while back to find the list of people linked to the Clintons who died under mysterious and suspicious circumstances. I especially like the one who died of decapitation that the Clinton backed coroner determined to be "natural causes" and the one who committed suicide by shooting herself in the back of the head.
It doesn't have to be the Clintons, though. Since the Democratic party was founded by white racists with a party platform to keep the blacks enslaved, and under the domination of the white race in this country, it is not a stretch of the imagination to conclude some loyal racist Democrat somewhere may just do the job for Hillary without her pre-knowledge or (official) consent.
There may be some people in this country who will take drastic measures to prevent a black man from being President.
Hillary, of course, is well aware of the racist attitude that permeates the Democratic party even today. She may very well be counting on some extremist Democrat nutcase to usher her into the Oval office. But, in deference to her position as a well-respected leader of Democrats, let's assume she wouldn't personally approve of such drastic and final action, even from extremists.
That's not to say she wouldn't take full advantage of the opportunity to become President, even if it is by such extreme measures.
She has even indicated that the possibility of Obama being assassinated exists, and drew no small amount of indignation for her comment, but she was merely saying what many others were thinking.
Hmmm. telling the truth. What a novel concept for Hillary!
If Obama has any common sense at all (and the jury is still out on that one), he will recognize the fact that choosing Hillary as a Vice Presidential candidate could be a fatal mistake for him.
Literally fatal.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
If It Bleeds, It Leads
"The papers said, These are the worst of times. I do believe it's true. When people lock their doors, and hide inside. Rumor has it it's the end of Paradise" ~ Dennis DeYoung
Millions of people across this country lock all the locks on all the doors and windows in their houses. Even if they are home. Not just when they go to sleep or when they are gone. All the time. I think this is excessive, and sometimes I think, "You know--if the house ever catches fire, you could burn to death trying to unlock all these locks in your panic to get out."
It's not obsessive or overly paranoid. It is cautious. There is nothing wrong with being cautious. It's always better to be safe than sorry.
I will admit to having more of a fear of fire than an act of random violence.
However, I have been thinking about the odds of any type of violent crime ever happening to us.
I think the chances of our family being a victim of some random violent crime are almost nil. I think the chances of anyone being a victim of a violent crime anytime in their lifetime to be very minimal at the most.
Of course, there are locations throughout our country in which the chances are greater, but on the average, I believe violent crime is no where near as prevalent as we are led to believe.
And who leads us to believe we are living on borrowed time?
Well, of course, the media does. The newspapers and television newscasts and radio news and magazines all tell us horror stories about violent crimes that happen on a daily basis. We cannot open a newspaper without seeing, on the front page and above the fold, as they say, some story about a murder or a rape or horrendous battery, usually right in our city or county. Violent crimes most often are the lead story in any given newscast.
Fictional movies and television shows exaggerate the problem. Oftentimes sensational movies and television shows re-create, for the viewers amusement, true stories of real crimes perpetrated on innocent victims. They are usually very liberal with their "poetic license", and we as a people react with the grim realization that "It could happen here." In fact, often the movie trailers intone those very ominous words.
"Be afraid. Be very afraid, This could happen to you."
Movies and television shows are part of the formidable beast we call media in this country.
It has the impact it is intended. It scares us into locking our doors, and keeping an eye out for anything suspicious.
The media has helped to create a climate of fear in this country. The media and actual random acts of violence.
But really. How often do violent crimes really happen randomly to innocent people? Do we really need to be so afraid? I am 56 years old. When I was about 17, I was unsuspectingly attacked by a neighborhood tough just because he thought I would be easy to beat up. He tried, but he just wasn't as tough as he wanted everyone to think he was. That was the first and last time I have ever been the victim of a violent crime. But it wasn't random, and it wasn't violent enough to count as a violent crime. I mean, I wasn't even injured. Not even an abrasion. So, even if we count that incident as a random violent crime, one incident in fifty-six years doesn't make a dent in crime statistics.
I've been in fights as a teen, (and I never lost one, I might add) but schoolyard fights don't count as a random violent crime statistic, either.
So, let's expand our sampling, shall we?
The most recent study I have found came from 2004 and states, "In 2004 America's crime rate is roughly the same as in 1970, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1965. Overall, the national crime rate was 3982 crimes per 100,000 residents..."
Note that this study includes random violent crimes perpetrated on innocent victims not known by the perpetrator along with non-random crimes committed by family members, friends and known enemies of the victims. Also note that this particular study doesn't differentiate between random violent crimes and run-of-the-mill everyday non-violent crimes. It simply refers to all crime.
But let's analyze these statistics and see if we are all indeed in imminent danger of being randomly, viciously attacked.
3982 crimes per 100,000 residents is approximately 3.98 % of the entire population of the United States. Go ahead and round it off to 4% to make it easier. Now remember, that this is a sampling that includes all crimes, you know, like shoplifting, drug possession, extortion, all types of white collar crimes, etc.
And that also includes crimes committed by people the victim knows, with a specific motive. Crimes that cannot be classified as random, and/or committed against unsuspecting innocent victims.
So now, the incidence of random acts of violence decreases significantly.
Wait a minute. Does that sound right to you?
If that is true, in a city the size of say--Topeka, Kansas--one might find about 5 crimes committed per year.
"Oh", you must be saying, "Those statistics only reflect reported crimes." And you would be right! As one of my readers (who never comments) pointed out, victims of rape, spousal abuse, and violent crimes committed in economically disadvantaged urban areas (or ghettos, if you will) go largely unreported. I read a CBS news report that stated 49% of all sexual crimes go unreported. But, just to show how confused CBS is, the headline on that report read "Over half of Violent crimes go unreported," a statistic not found in the article. (Uh--CBS--I hate to tell you this, but, 49% is not over half)
So. Assuming that half of all crimes go unreported, that would mean that in Topeka, Kansas, there would have been 10 crimes committed in 2004. That's all crimes, not only violent crimes.
That can't be accurate, can it? Of course it isn't.
Our sample city, Topeka, Kansas, while relatively small in comparison to most U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000, is still an urban area. It has more violent crime than cities or counties of over 100,000 with predominately suburban residents. For instance, I once lived in Johnson County, Kansas. Same state as Topeka, but Johnson County is much more suburban than Topeka. Johnson County, overall, has over double the population of Topeka, but much less violent crime.
My point is, it evens out. Lumping cities and counties with low and suburban (or both) populations together with overpopulated urban areas the 4-10% statistic may very well be accurate.
Conclusion? Incidents of random violent crimes are not nearly as likely to happen to you as media sources would have you believe. In all likelihood, you could literally leave your doors and windows unlocked and sleep peacefully in your house for the rest of your natural life without being victimized even once by a random violent crime.
That doesn't mean you should be foolhardy. Go ahead and lock your doors. By doing so, you decrease the chances, however slim, of a crime being perpetrated against you or your family.
Now, we are left to question, "Why?" Why does the media continue to terrorize the people in this way?
Well, it's the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads". Comforting news simply doesn't sell. But is that the only reason they want to keep us afraid to leave our houses?
Could it be that they realize what kind of power the pen wields, and are using it to control the people? Could it be that they know as long as we are afraid to venture beyond our comfort zones we won't drive them from their positions of power? Positions from where they dictate our every move?
Is it something more insidious, or is it just human nature to blow every threat to our personal safety out of proportion?
Maybe there is no motive other than their projection of their own fears upon the rest of us.
Maybe it's because our human nature, with it's inherent sense of survival, creates a protective bubble around us, even when few threats exist.
Do you feel manipulated?
Taking into consideration our analysis of the crime statistics, are you still frightened?
One other thing:
Doesn't living in fear lessen our quality of life? How much more rewarding and abundant could our lives be if we freed ourselves from the shackles of unwarranted fear?
Perhaps it's time we free ourselves and begin to rage against the machine that is media.
Millions of people across this country lock all the locks on all the doors and windows in their houses. Even if they are home. Not just when they go to sleep or when they are gone. All the time. I think this is excessive, and sometimes I think, "You know--if the house ever catches fire, you could burn to death trying to unlock all these locks in your panic to get out."
It's not obsessive or overly paranoid. It is cautious. There is nothing wrong with being cautious. It's always better to be safe than sorry.
I will admit to having more of a fear of fire than an act of random violence.
However, I have been thinking about the odds of any type of violent crime ever happening to us.
I think the chances of our family being a victim of some random violent crime are almost nil. I think the chances of anyone being a victim of a violent crime anytime in their lifetime to be very minimal at the most.
Of course, there are locations throughout our country in which the chances are greater, but on the average, I believe violent crime is no where near as prevalent as we are led to believe.
And who leads us to believe we are living on borrowed time?
Well, of course, the media does. The newspapers and television newscasts and radio news and magazines all tell us horror stories about violent crimes that happen on a daily basis. We cannot open a newspaper without seeing, on the front page and above the fold, as they say, some story about a murder or a rape or horrendous battery, usually right in our city or county. Violent crimes most often are the lead story in any given newscast.
Fictional movies and television shows exaggerate the problem. Oftentimes sensational movies and television shows re-create, for the viewers amusement, true stories of real crimes perpetrated on innocent victims. They are usually very liberal with their "poetic license", and we as a people react with the grim realization that "It could happen here." In fact, often the movie trailers intone those very ominous words.
"Be afraid. Be very afraid, This could happen to you."
Movies and television shows are part of the formidable beast we call media in this country.
It has the impact it is intended. It scares us into locking our doors, and keeping an eye out for anything suspicious.
The media has helped to create a climate of fear in this country. The media and actual random acts of violence.
But really. How often do violent crimes really happen randomly to innocent people? Do we really need to be so afraid? I am 56 years old. When I was about 17, I was unsuspectingly attacked by a neighborhood tough just because he thought I would be easy to beat up. He tried, but he just wasn't as tough as he wanted everyone to think he was. That was the first and last time I have ever been the victim of a violent crime. But it wasn't random, and it wasn't violent enough to count as a violent crime. I mean, I wasn't even injured. Not even an abrasion. So, even if we count that incident as a random violent crime, one incident in fifty-six years doesn't make a dent in crime statistics.
I've been in fights as a teen, (and I never lost one, I might add) but schoolyard fights don't count as a random violent crime statistic, either.
So, let's expand our sampling, shall we?
The most recent study I have found came from 2004 and states, "In 2004 America's crime rate is roughly the same as in 1970, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1965. Overall, the national crime rate was 3982 crimes per 100,000 residents..."
Note that this study includes random violent crimes perpetrated on innocent victims not known by the perpetrator along with non-random crimes committed by family members, friends and known enemies of the victims. Also note that this particular study doesn't differentiate between random violent crimes and run-of-the-mill everyday non-violent crimes. It simply refers to all crime.
But let's analyze these statistics and see if we are all indeed in imminent danger of being randomly, viciously attacked.
3982 crimes per 100,000 residents is approximately 3.98 % of the entire population of the United States. Go ahead and round it off to 4% to make it easier. Now remember, that this is a sampling that includes all crimes, you know, like shoplifting, drug possession, extortion, all types of white collar crimes, etc.
And that also includes crimes committed by people the victim knows, with a specific motive. Crimes that cannot be classified as random, and/or committed against unsuspecting innocent victims.
So now, the incidence of random acts of violence decreases significantly.
Wait a minute. Does that sound right to you?
If that is true, in a city the size of say--Topeka, Kansas--one might find about 5 crimes committed per year.
"Oh", you must be saying, "Those statistics only reflect reported crimes." And you would be right! As one of my readers (who never comments) pointed out, victims of rape, spousal abuse, and violent crimes committed in economically disadvantaged urban areas (or ghettos, if you will) go largely unreported. I read a CBS news report that stated 49% of all sexual crimes go unreported. But, just to show how confused CBS is, the headline on that report read "Over half of Violent crimes go unreported," a statistic not found in the article. (Uh--CBS--I hate to tell you this, but, 49% is not over half)
So. Assuming that half of all crimes go unreported, that would mean that in Topeka, Kansas, there would have been 10 crimes committed in 2004. That's all crimes, not only violent crimes.
That can't be accurate, can it? Of course it isn't.
Our sample city, Topeka, Kansas, while relatively small in comparison to most U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000, is still an urban area. It has more violent crime than cities or counties of over 100,000 with predominately suburban residents. For instance, I once lived in Johnson County, Kansas. Same state as Topeka, but Johnson County is much more suburban than Topeka. Johnson County, overall, has over double the population of Topeka, but much less violent crime.
My point is, it evens out. Lumping cities and counties with low and suburban (or both) populations together with overpopulated urban areas the 4-10% statistic may very well be accurate.
Conclusion? Incidents of random violent crimes are not nearly as likely to happen to you as media sources would have you believe. In all likelihood, you could literally leave your doors and windows unlocked and sleep peacefully in your house for the rest of your natural life without being victimized even once by a random violent crime.
That doesn't mean you should be foolhardy. Go ahead and lock your doors. By doing so, you decrease the chances, however slim, of a crime being perpetrated against you or your family.
Now, we are left to question, "Why?" Why does the media continue to terrorize the people in this way?
Well, it's the old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads". Comforting news simply doesn't sell. But is that the only reason they want to keep us afraid to leave our houses?
Could it be that they realize what kind of power the pen wields, and are using it to control the people? Could it be that they know as long as we are afraid to venture beyond our comfort zones we won't drive them from their positions of power? Positions from where they dictate our every move?
Is it something more insidious, or is it just human nature to blow every threat to our personal safety out of proportion?
Maybe there is no motive other than their projection of their own fears upon the rest of us.
Maybe it's because our human nature, with it's inherent sense of survival, creates a protective bubble around us, even when few threats exist.
Do you feel manipulated?
Taking into consideration our analysis of the crime statistics, are you still frightened?
One other thing:
Doesn't living in fear lessen our quality of life? How much more rewarding and abundant could our lives be if we freed ourselves from the shackles of unwarranted fear?
Perhaps it's time we free ourselves and begin to rage against the machine that is media.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial Day
"All gave some. Some gave all." ~ Various authors
OK. I wrote another post in place of this one, but since then, I found this video, and I can't let Memorial Day go by without posting this. You can read the other post below this one.
As you attend your cookouts and picnics today, try to pause for a moment to remember the reason for the day.
OK. I wrote another post in place of this one, but since then, I found this video, and I can't let Memorial Day go by without posting this. You can read the other post below this one.
As you attend your cookouts and picnics today, try to pause for a moment to remember the reason for the day.
Mixed Feelings
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." ~ Sir Winston Churchill
Today being Memorial Day, I feel I must create some sort of tribute for the men and women who have fallen in the service of our country. I found a wonderful such tribute in a magazine I picked up in the church lobby a couple of weeks ago, and I was going to use it as a basis for my post, but I lost the magazine. So, I was going to fly solo.
Then, this morning, when I sat down at the keyboard, I first had to visit Lone Ranger's blog, which has become a daily first stop for me. There I found a link back to an entry on Tug's blog, which, before his long sabbatical, used to be the other one I never failed to visit daily.
LR's right (as usual). It is an excellent article about Senator Edward M. Kennedy's recent discovery of a brain tumor.
So, then, I just had to write the blog post I had considered writing but didn't. Since becoming domesticated, I just haven't been able to find the time to write anything. Here is my comment on Tug's piece (read his first):
I too, wanted to write something about Kennedy's brain tumor and inevitable death.
I too, wanted to write something compassionate without expressing glee at the promise of his exit from the Senate and the world.
I too, hoped to refrain from behaving like a Liberal when expressing my thoughts on the impending demise of this man.
I too, feel a sense of sorrow at the travails of a fellow human being in a time of great personal trial. I wanted to express that sense of sorrow with my comment without celebrating his debilitating illness.
After all, I am a Christian and I do have compassion for all of God's creatures. I really can hate the sin without hating the sinner. Really.
I can and I do.
I can also forgive and often do. Even when I am not asked forgiveness. It is how I've managed to stay sane.
That said, do you want to know what my first thoughts were when I heard the news of Kennedy's tumor? Here they are:
Usually when one is diagnosed with some some terminal illness and knows he has little time left to live, one wants to beg forgiveness, both to God and man, for whatever real or perceived sins one has committed in the course of their life. Particularly Catholics, who feel they must do penance for their sins.
With that in mind, I wonder if Teddy has asked God for forgiveness for his murder of Mary Jo Kopechne and the many other transgressions he has committed in his life.
So far, it doesn't appear he has yet begged forgiveness from man.
I do know one thing for sure: When he at last finds himself on his knees, and has to give account of his life before God, he will most assuredly beg.
Here is the one compassionate thing I will say in his behalf:
May God have mercy on his soul.
Today being Memorial Day, I feel I must create some sort of tribute for the men and women who have fallen in the service of our country. I found a wonderful such tribute in a magazine I picked up in the church lobby a couple of weeks ago, and I was going to use it as a basis for my post, but I lost the magazine. So, I was going to fly solo.
Then, this morning, when I sat down at the keyboard, I first had to visit Lone Ranger's blog, which has become a daily first stop for me. There I found a link back to an entry on Tug's blog, which, before his long sabbatical, used to be the other one I never failed to visit daily.
LR's right (as usual). It is an excellent article about Senator Edward M. Kennedy's recent discovery of a brain tumor.
So, then, I just had to write the blog post I had considered writing but didn't. Since becoming domesticated, I just haven't been able to find the time to write anything. Here is my comment on Tug's piece (read his first):I too, wanted to write something about Kennedy's brain tumor and inevitable death.
I too, wanted to write something compassionate without expressing glee at the promise of his exit from the Senate and the world.
I too, hoped to refrain from behaving like a Liberal when expressing my thoughts on the impending demise of this man.
I too, feel a sense of sorrow at the travails of a fellow human being in a time of great personal trial. I wanted to express that sense of sorrow with my comment without celebrating his debilitating illness.
After all, I am a Christian and I do have compassion for all of God's creatures. I really can hate the sin without hating the sinner. Really.
I can and I do.
I can also forgive and often do. Even when I am not asked forgiveness. It is how I've managed to stay sane.
That said, do you want to know what my first thoughts were when I heard the news of Kennedy's tumor? Here they are:
Usually when one is diagnosed with some some terminal illness and knows he has little time left to live, one wants to beg forgiveness, both to God and man, for whatever real or perceived sins one has committed in the course of their life. Particularly Catholics, who feel they must do penance for their sins.
With that in mind, I wonder if Teddy has asked God for forgiveness for his murder of Mary Jo Kopechne and the many other transgressions he has committed in his life.
So far, it doesn't appear he has yet begged forgiveness from man.
I do know one thing for sure: When he at last finds himself on his knees, and has to give account of his life before God, he will most assuredly beg.
Here is the one compassionate thing I will say in his behalf:
May God have mercy on his soul.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Folding The Flag
"Showing respect for the flag shows respect for American ideals...every action you take will will strengthen the bonds of community that unite all Americans, and extends the promise of American life to another citizen." ~ George W. Bush
This Monday is Memorial Day, one of several National holidays in which the American flag is displayed. If you display the flag on Memorial day, there are several web sites that will instruct you in the proper and legal way in which the flag may be hoisted, displayed, and even folded.
Here are the instructions for displaying the flag.
Here are official,legal facts about how and when to display the flag. Other web sites have additional information should you not find what you are specifically looking for on the linked pages.
Here are instructions in the proper way to fold the flag.
While the most accepted flag folding ceremony is the Air Force's ceremony, I personally like the National Flag Foundations ceremony better, because The Air Force's ceremony was changed to appease some bleeding heart Liberal anti-religious objection to the religious content, which cited the mythical "violation of the establishment clause" in the Constitution in the original ceremony.
So, submitted as a courtesy to those readers who still respect the American flag, and the country for which it stands, the following is copied and pasted from the National Flag Foundation's website:
NATIONAL FLAG FOUNDATION'S FLAG FOLDING CEREMONY
National Flag Foundation presents its own special flag folding ceremony, incorporating several of the virtues attributed to the colors of the Flag as specified in 1782 by Charles Thomson, then Secretary of Congress. National Flag Foundation recommends that this ceremony be read prior to the actual folding of the flag.
The first fold stands for liberty. In America, we are free to own property, to elect our government representatives, to attend the church of our choice, to openly disagree, to travel freely without restriction, to pursue an education and the “American Dream”. The white stripes of the Flag symbolize our liberty.
The second fold represents unity. Abraham Lincoln stated that a house divided against itself cannot stand. National unity in the face of natural disasters and external threats, such as those posed on September 11, 2001, has preserved our constitutional republic.
The third fold stands for justice. In America we believe that every person stands equal before the law and is deserving of just and fair treatment. The laborer and the lawyer are both entitled to justice in America. The blue of the Flag embodies justice.
The fourth fold symbolizes perseverance. To persevere means to endure, to remain steadfast despite severe hardship and obstacles. The Continental Army suffered repeated setbacks before claiming any significant victory. Yet throughout the brutal winter of 1777 at Valley Forge, they persevered.
The fifth fold represents hardiness. Hardiness is the ability to withstand difficulty while remaining resolute despite adversity. The aggressors in World War II underestimated American hardiness. They thought that Americans were soft, incapable and unwilling to endure hardship. Our soldiers and sailors such as those who fought at Normandy and in Korea proved them wrong.
The sixth fold stands for valor. Valor means courage, the act of defending what is right even in the face of opposition. Nathan Hale, the Revolutionary War patriot, was convicted of spying by the British in 1776. Before he was hanged, Hale displayed great valor with his words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." The red color in the flag represents valor, symbolic of the blood shed by all the American heroes who sacrificed for our freedom.
The seventh fold symbolizes purity. A pure nation is free from taint, from what weakens, pollutes or renders it ineffective. Our Founding Fathers illuminated freedom's path for us when they created the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The pure intent of these documents enabled the United States of America to become the greatest of all nations, a land of liberty which beckons to all who are seeking asylum from persecution and oppression.
The eighth fold represents innocence. Innocence implies that one is unacquainted with evil and is thus free from sin. George Washington once stated, "The love of my country will be the ruling influence of my conduct." Americans pay tribute to him and to all those who give devoted service to uphold freedom's ideals without selfish or evil motivations.
The ninth fold signifies sacrifice. To sacrifice is to give up something valued for an ideal, belief or goal. America exists today because of the sacrifices of countless Americans. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives in battles waged during the Revolution, the World Wars, in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and other locations around the world. We pay tribute to them and to the firefighters, policemen, soup kitchen volunteers, members of our armed forces and numerous others who continue to sacrifice for freedom.
The tenth fold stands for honor. One who possesses honor possesses a keen sense of ethical conduct. To honor a person or ideal is to display respect for them. We give thanks for all who have acted with honor in the founding and growth of America. We pray that each citizen and all those who represent us in government will conduct themselves in a manner that will continue to bring honor to our nation and to our Flag.
The eleventh fold symbolizes independence. Independence is the state of being free, of being able to make unrestricted choices within the law as free individuals and as a free nation. Ever since our nation’s birth, Americans have fiercely defended their independence against all oppressors. Patrick Henry articulated the sentiments of his fellow Americans past, present and future when he uttered those famous words, "Give me liberty, or give me death." America stands as an icon of freedom and independence for the oppressed of the world. May it always remain so.
The twelfth fold represents truth. Truth is the body of real events and facts. It is preserved through adherence to reality and the avoidance of falsehoods. America was built upon God-given truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Adherence to these truths has made America a great nation. We pledge to continue this noble legacy of truth so that in America, every man woman and child may forever be free.
This Monday is Memorial Day, one of several National holidays in which the American flag is displayed. If you display the flag on Memorial day, there are several web sites that will instruct you in the proper and legal way in which the flag may be hoisted, displayed, and even folded.
Here are the instructions for displaying the flag.
Here are official,legal facts about how and when to display the flag. Other web sites have additional information should you not find what you are specifically looking for on the linked pages.
Here are instructions in the proper way to fold the flag.
While the most accepted flag folding ceremony is the Air Force's ceremony, I personally like the National Flag Foundations ceremony better, because The Air Force's ceremony was changed to appease some bleeding heart Liberal anti-religious objection to the religious content, which cited the mythical "violation of the establishment clause" in the Constitution in the original ceremony.
So, submitted as a courtesy to those readers who still respect the American flag, and the country for which it stands, the following is copied and pasted from the National Flag Foundation's website:
NATIONAL FLAG FOUNDATION'S FLAG FOLDING CEREMONY
National Flag Foundation presents its own special flag folding ceremony, incorporating several of the virtues attributed to the colors of the Flag as specified in 1782 by Charles Thomson, then Secretary of Congress. National Flag Foundation recommends that this ceremony be read prior to the actual folding of the flag.
The first fold stands for liberty. In America, we are free to own property, to elect our government representatives, to attend the church of our choice, to openly disagree, to travel freely without restriction, to pursue an education and the “American Dream”. The white stripes of the Flag symbolize our liberty.
The second fold represents unity. Abraham Lincoln stated that a house divided against itself cannot stand. National unity in the face of natural disasters and external threats, such as those posed on September 11, 2001, has preserved our constitutional republic.
The third fold stands for justice. In America we believe that every person stands equal before the law and is deserving of just and fair treatment. The laborer and the lawyer are both entitled to justice in America. The blue of the Flag embodies justice.
The fourth fold symbolizes perseverance. To persevere means to endure, to remain steadfast despite severe hardship and obstacles. The Continental Army suffered repeated setbacks before claiming any significant victory. Yet throughout the brutal winter of 1777 at Valley Forge, they persevered.
The fifth fold represents hardiness. Hardiness is the ability to withstand difficulty while remaining resolute despite adversity. The aggressors in World War II underestimated American hardiness. They thought that Americans were soft, incapable and unwilling to endure hardship. Our soldiers and sailors such as those who fought at Normandy and in Korea proved them wrong.
The sixth fold stands for valor. Valor means courage, the act of defending what is right even in the face of opposition. Nathan Hale, the Revolutionary War patriot, was convicted of spying by the British in 1776. Before he was hanged, Hale displayed great valor with his words, "I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country." The red color in the flag represents valor, symbolic of the blood shed by all the American heroes who sacrificed for our freedom.
The seventh fold symbolizes purity. A pure nation is free from taint, from what weakens, pollutes or renders it ineffective. Our Founding Fathers illuminated freedom's path for us when they created the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The pure intent of these documents enabled the United States of America to become the greatest of all nations, a land of liberty which beckons to all who are seeking asylum from persecution and oppression.
The eighth fold represents innocence. Innocence implies that one is unacquainted with evil and is thus free from sin. George Washington once stated, "The love of my country will be the ruling influence of my conduct." Americans pay tribute to him and to all those who give devoted service to uphold freedom's ideals without selfish or evil motivations.
The ninth fold signifies sacrifice. To sacrifice is to give up something valued for an ideal, belief or goal. America exists today because of the sacrifices of countless Americans. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives in battles waged during the Revolution, the World Wars, in Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and other locations around the world. We pay tribute to them and to the firefighters, policemen, soup kitchen volunteers, members of our armed forces and numerous others who continue to sacrifice for freedom.
The tenth fold stands for honor. One who possesses honor possesses a keen sense of ethical conduct. To honor a person or ideal is to display respect for them. We give thanks for all who have acted with honor in the founding and growth of America. We pray that each citizen and all those who represent us in government will conduct themselves in a manner that will continue to bring honor to our nation and to our Flag.
The eleventh fold symbolizes independence. Independence is the state of being free, of being able to make unrestricted choices within the law as free individuals and as a free nation. Ever since our nation’s birth, Americans have fiercely defended their independence against all oppressors. Patrick Henry articulated the sentiments of his fellow Americans past, present and future when he uttered those famous words, "Give me liberty, or give me death." America stands as an icon of freedom and independence for the oppressed of the world. May it always remain so.
The twelfth fold represents truth. Truth is the body of real events and facts. It is preserved through adherence to reality and the avoidance of falsehoods. America was built upon God-given truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Adherence to these truths has made America a great nation. We pledge to continue this noble legacy of truth so that in America, every man woman and child may forever be free.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Democrats Say The Darndest things!
"Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." ~ Ambrose Bierce
While canvassing a local neighborhood last night collecting donations for the local volunteer fire department, I walked up one driveway, and remarked to myself, "I probably won't get anything from these people."
The reason I was so skeptical that the occupants of the home would be generous was because the two cars in their driveway both had "Hillary for president" bumper stickers on them.
I've seen this movie enough times to guess the ending.
I was right. They refused to donate.
I'm not saying Democrats aren't generous. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they are even more generous than Republicans. The only difference is that Democrats prefer to be generous with other people's money. Democrats have often told me they believe the government should fund Fire departments and rescue squads. When I have pointed out that it would mean a precipitous increase in taxes, they acknowledged that, but stated they don't mind paying higher taxes as long as the rich had to pay their share, too.
The particular Democrats I was having these conversations with were all very much wealthier than I.
But I digress.
As I walked to the next house on the street, the Hillary supporters walked past me on what I presume to be their nightly power walk around the neighborhood. As they passed, I said, "Doesn't look too good for your candidate right now, does it?"
"No, it doesn't" Mr. Hillary supporter dejectedly replied.
"So, if Obama wins the nomination, will you go ahead and vote for him for President?" I queried.
"No way!" He said, passionately.
Then, his wife added, "I wouldn't vote for the anti-Christ"
(I assume she was referring to B. Hussein Obama, but I didn't ask)
"So", I shouted, as the distance between us increased, "if Obama is the candidate, who will you vote for?"
As they power walked around the corner, they both shouted back to me, "We'll vote for McCain before we'll vote for Obama!"
Now, this would be shocking if McCain were truly a Conservative, but as it is, voting for a Hillary or an Obama vs. voting for McCain is like flipping a coin.
They are on two sides of the same Liberal coin.
Hillary/Obama vs John McCain.
Heads, Democrats win. Tails, Republicans lose.
While canvassing a local neighborhood last night collecting donations for the local volunteer fire department, I walked up one driveway, and remarked to myself, "I probably won't get anything from these people."
The reason I was so skeptical that the occupants of the home would be generous was because the two cars in their driveway both had "Hillary for president" bumper stickers on them.
I've seen this movie enough times to guess the ending.
I was right. They refused to donate.
I'm not saying Democrats aren't generous. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they are even more generous than Republicans. The only difference is that Democrats prefer to be generous with other people's money. Democrats have often told me they believe the government should fund Fire departments and rescue squads. When I have pointed out that it would mean a precipitous increase in taxes, they acknowledged that, but stated they don't mind paying higher taxes as long as the rich had to pay their share, too.
The particular Democrats I was having these conversations with were all very much wealthier than I.
But I digress.
As I walked to the next house on the street, the Hillary supporters walked past me on what I presume to be their nightly power walk around the neighborhood. As they passed, I said, "Doesn't look too good for your candidate right now, does it?"
"No, it doesn't" Mr. Hillary supporter dejectedly replied.
"So, if Obama wins the nomination, will you go ahead and vote for him for President?" I queried.
"No way!" He said, passionately.
Then, his wife added, "I wouldn't vote for the anti-Christ"
(I assume she was referring to B. Hussein Obama, but I didn't ask)
"So", I shouted, as the distance between us increased, "if Obama is the candidate, who will you vote for?"
As they power walked around the corner, they both shouted back to me, "We'll vote for McCain before we'll vote for Obama!"
Now, this would be shocking if McCain were truly a Conservative, but as it is, voting for a Hillary or an Obama vs. voting for McCain is like flipping a coin.
They are on two sides of the same Liberal coin.
Hillary/Obama vs John McCain.
Heads, Democrats win. Tails, Republicans lose.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
What Was In My Head When I Awoke
"There ain't no bugs on me." ~ Unknown
We have two pugs. Everytime I hear this song on TV, (Well, most of the time)I sing along, but instead of singing "some of you mugs", I sing "some of you pugs". I'm silly like that sometimes.
By the way, the other night when I was sleeping, I don't know what I did, but I must have accidentally kicked my older pug, Beast, the Democrat dog, in my sleep, because he let out a yelp, and then bit my left big toe. Hard. I was bleeding from both the top and bottom of my toe.
Dog bites really hurt.
We have two pugs. Everytime I hear this song on TV, (Well, most of the time)I sing along, but instead of singing "some of you mugs", I sing "some of you pugs". I'm silly like that sometimes.
By the way, the other night when I was sleeping, I don't know what I did, but I must have accidentally kicked my older pug, Beast, the Democrat dog, in my sleep, because he let out a yelp, and then bit my left big toe. Hard. I was bleeding from both the top and bottom of my toe.
Dog bites really hurt.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Still Here
"The report of my death was an exaggeration." ~ Mark Twain
Trader Rick sent me a message asking, "Where are you?"
I am here.
I've been either too busy or I've already commented on every current event about which I've been passionate.
It's nice to know I'm missed, though. Thanks, Rick.
The presidential campaign goes on, with the Democrats continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, and McCain in the wings, just sitting the fray out and probably smiling, because so far, he doesn't have to actively campaign. The Democrats are running his campaign for him.
My wife e-mailed me some Democrat blog (believe me, if she hadn't, I never would have read it myself. I have no interest in what idiots have to say), and many Democrats are saying if Obama wins the nomination, they'll either vote for McCain or sit this one out.
Little difference as far as I can see. A vote for McCain is very much the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Some Democrats are speculating that Obama will choose Hillary as his running mate.
Not gonna happen. Presidential contenders never choose a rival for their running mate. Never.
Others are speculating that he will choose Ted Kennedy. Maybe. But if Kennedy wanted to be in the executive branch of Government he would have run for President long ago. It isn't because he hasn't been asked, for sure.
Wait. I do have one event that I feel deserves my comment:
Where is Adrian Monk when we need him?
The "suicide" of D.C. Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey.
I said in a couple of previous posts (here and here), when her client list is finally revealed, Americans will not be surprised to find the names of many high profile Democratic politicians within.
Then I corrected myself.
Democrats would never allow their names to be released, and their friends in the Liberal biased media would scramble like Warren Moon to make sure it stays that way.
I also said if any Republican names were on her list, we will soon find out, and that proved to be true. Republican Senator David Vitter (LA) and an aide to President Bush were listed.
We will never know if my prediction about Democrats being on the list will come true because, as I already mentioned, Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media will squash that news.
I believe the "suicide" death of MS Palfrey is about as much validation we're going to get that Democrats were indeed on the list.
This is my theory:
I know I risk being called a conspiracy theorist, but I think some high ranking Democrats who's names are on Ms. Palfrey's list had her killed, and made it look like suicide.
I guarantee you one thing:
If there was any indication that any Republicans had anything at all to do with Ms. Palfrey and her list, the media would be all over this story, implying and downright accusing Republicans of dirty dealings.
Why has there not been any criminal investigation? Because the media will not reveal Democrat involvement. It's that simple.
Mark my words. It might take a couple of decades, but it will eventually be revealed that some high ranking Democrat politician had her murdered. Probably not until after that politician is dead and buried, though.
Wait and see.
Trader Rick sent me a message asking, "Where are you?"
I am here.
I've been either too busy or I've already commented on every current event about which I've been passionate.
It's nice to know I'm missed, though. Thanks, Rick.
The presidential campaign goes on, with the Democrats continuing to shoot themselves in the foot, and McCain in the wings, just sitting the fray out and probably smiling, because so far, he doesn't have to actively campaign. The Democrats are running his campaign for him.
My wife e-mailed me some Democrat blog (believe me, if she hadn't, I never would have read it myself. I have no interest in what idiots have to say), and many Democrats are saying if Obama wins the nomination, they'll either vote for McCain or sit this one out.
Little difference as far as I can see. A vote for McCain is very much the same as a vote for a Democrat.
Some Democrats are speculating that Obama will choose Hillary as his running mate.
Not gonna happen. Presidential contenders never choose a rival for their running mate. Never.
Others are speculating that he will choose Ted Kennedy. Maybe. But if Kennedy wanted to be in the executive branch of Government he would have run for President long ago. It isn't because he hasn't been asked, for sure.
Wait. I do have one event that I feel deserves my comment:
Where is Adrian Monk when we need him?
The "suicide" of D.C. Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey.
I said in a couple of previous posts (here and here), when her client list is finally revealed, Americans will not be surprised to find the names of many high profile Democratic politicians within.
Then I corrected myself.
Democrats would never allow their names to be released, and their friends in the Liberal biased media would scramble like Warren Moon to make sure it stays that way.
I also said if any Republican names were on her list, we will soon find out, and that proved to be true. Republican Senator David Vitter (LA) and an aide to President Bush were listed.
We will never know if my prediction about Democrats being on the list will come true because, as I already mentioned, Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media will squash that news.
I believe the "suicide" death of MS Palfrey is about as much validation we're going to get that Democrats were indeed on the list.
This is my theory:
I know I risk being called a conspiracy theorist, but I think some high ranking Democrats who's names are on Ms. Palfrey's list had her killed, and made it look like suicide.
I guarantee you one thing:
If there was any indication that any Republicans had anything at all to do with Ms. Palfrey and her list, the media would be all over this story, implying and downright accusing Republicans of dirty dealings.
Why has there not been any criminal investigation? Because the media will not reveal Democrat involvement. It's that simple.
Mark my words. It might take a couple of decades, but it will eventually be revealed that some high ranking Democrat politician had her murdered. Probably not until after that politician is dead and buried, though.
Wait and see.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Reverend Wright? Just Go Away Already.
"Can't we all just get along?" ~ Rodney King
AARRRGGGGGHHHHH! I am so sick of this racist, separatist Jeremiah Wright crap, I can't find the words!
Well, I can find some.
Usually, I ignore all the incessant blather from fools like Wright but even I am offended by this jerk. Why are the networks and talk shows even wasting their airtime on this lunatic? Why am I up at 4:30 in the morning writing about the idiot?
Why?
Because he has offended me so much I can't sleep! We've all heard and read the racist, separatist comments from this creep. "United States of KKK America". "God Damn America". "Aids was created by white Government to kill blacks".
And on and on and on ad infinitum.
But last night, I heard some sound bites on the Laura Ingraham show from the wrong reverend Wright that I hadn't heard on other talk shows. This pathetic excuse for a human mocked the way white people talk, and the way white people sing, and even mocked President John F. Kennedy.
Do I even have to remind Reverend Wrong that it is his race, the black race, that spawned Ebonics?
Give me a break! If you want to sound stupid and uneducated, learn to speak in Ebonics.
And just like Ebonics, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has created antipathy between the races that mere racism couldn't manage on it's own.
However, he isn't the only one. He's just the most ridiculous. This time.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lewis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, to name a few. And what's the name of that stupid black racist separatist college professor idiot who said the white race needs to be exterminated? I seem to remember he teaches at some college in the south somewhere. It doesn't matter. Strip off the titles of Professor, Reverend, and Minister and they are all racist separatist idiots.
The only significant divide between races present in this country today is the divide perpetuated by these so-called civil rights activists.
And the only thing worse than a racist is one who purposely divides the races for monetary gain. Like the aforementioned "Reverends" and professors.
Listen. The dictionary defines racism as: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
I disagree. That definition would imply that if one recognizes certain cultural differences in people of other races, that one is a racist. As I have explained in a previous post, that isn't racist. That is merely recognizing facts and not running from them for fear of being called a racist.
I believe racism is a manifestation of hatred for all people of another race simply because of their color or religion.
According to the dictionary's definition, I am a racist. But I am not a racist. I don't hate all black people. I hate some black people. I hate black thugs. Of course, I also hate white thugs. And Hispanic thugs. And Asian thugs. And Islamic thugs.
And I hate purveyors of racist separatism. Like the Wrong Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He needs to go back to where he came from.
Obscurity.
He has served his purpose. That of exposing the hypocrisy, racism, and elitism of Barack Hussein Obama.
Now he needs to fade back into the woodwork from whence he came. And he needs to take all the other racist separatist you-know-what's with him.
And the sooner the better.
AARRRGGGGGHHHHH! I am so sick of this racist, separatist Jeremiah Wright crap, I can't find the words!
Well, I can find some.
Usually, I ignore all the incessant blather from fools like Wright but even I am offended by this jerk. Why are the networks and talk shows even wasting their airtime on this lunatic? Why am I up at 4:30 in the morning writing about the idiot?
Why?
Because he has offended me so much I can't sleep! We've all heard and read the racist, separatist comments from this creep. "United States of KKK America". "God Damn America". "Aids was created by white Government to kill blacks".
And on and on and on ad infinitum.
But last night, I heard some sound bites on the Laura Ingraham show from the wrong reverend Wright that I hadn't heard on other talk shows. This pathetic excuse for a human mocked the way white people talk, and the way white people sing, and even mocked President John F. Kennedy.
Do I even have to remind Reverend Wrong that it is his race, the black race, that spawned Ebonics?
Give me a break! If you want to sound stupid and uneducated, learn to speak in Ebonics.
And just like Ebonics, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has created antipathy between the races that mere racism couldn't manage on it's own.
However, he isn't the only one. He's just the most ridiculous. This time.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lewis Farrakhan, Malcolm X, to name a few. And what's the name of that stupid black racist separatist college professor idiot who said the white race needs to be exterminated? I seem to remember he teaches at some college in the south somewhere. It doesn't matter. Strip off the titles of Professor, Reverend, and Minister and they are all racist separatist idiots.
The only significant divide between races present in this country today is the divide perpetuated by these so-called civil rights activists.
And the only thing worse than a racist is one who purposely divides the races for monetary gain. Like the aforementioned "Reverends" and professors.
Listen. The dictionary defines racism as: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
I disagree. That definition would imply that if one recognizes certain cultural differences in people of other races, that one is a racist. As I have explained in a previous post, that isn't racist. That is merely recognizing facts and not running from them for fear of being called a racist.
I believe racism is a manifestation of hatred for all people of another race simply because of their color or religion.
According to the dictionary's definition, I am a racist. But I am not a racist. I don't hate all black people. I hate some black people. I hate black thugs. Of course, I also hate white thugs. And Hispanic thugs. And Asian thugs. And Islamic thugs.
And I hate purveyors of racist separatism. Like the Wrong Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He needs to go back to where he came from.
Obscurity.
He has served his purpose. That of exposing the hypocrisy, racism, and elitism of Barack Hussein Obama.
Now he needs to fade back into the woodwork from whence he came. And he needs to take all the other racist separatist you-know-what's with him.
And the sooner the better.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Signs The Apocolypse Is Upon Us
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." ~ Adolf Hitler
The world is coming to an end.
This, to my mind, is disturbing evidence that Pat Robertson is not Christ motivated, but money motivated. I have always believed he is a phony, and only in ministry for the money, and this ad appears to confirm my belief. If he truly believes in the power of God, he would believe man is not capable of destroying what God has made. He has, however, often demonstrated that he is more interested in the almighty dollar than the almighty God. Al Sharpton's presence in the ad is no surprise.
I'm not saying Robertson is not a man of faith. After all, it takes more faith to believe in Global Warming than it does to believe in God.
What's more troubling than the fact that two political opposites are appearing in an ad together for one cause is the cause itself.
I cannot state it often enough.
Global Warming is a myth.
And "Climate Change" is just a term for Global Warming that the Global Warming nuts use to cover their behinds in the inevitable case their wacky theories turn out to be wrong and the globe actually cools. If they say "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming", they are right either way, and then they can say, "Nyah Nyah Nyah! We told you so!"
It's craziness that will end the world, not Climate Change.
The world is coming to an end.
This, to my mind, is disturbing evidence that Pat Robertson is not Christ motivated, but money motivated. I have always believed he is a phony, and only in ministry for the money, and this ad appears to confirm my belief. If he truly believes in the power of God, he would believe man is not capable of destroying what God has made. He has, however, often demonstrated that he is more interested in the almighty dollar than the almighty God. Al Sharpton's presence in the ad is no surprise.
I'm not saying Robertson is not a man of faith. After all, it takes more faith to believe in Global Warming than it does to believe in God.
What's more troubling than the fact that two political opposites are appearing in an ad together for one cause is the cause itself.
I cannot state it often enough.
Global Warming is a myth.
And "Climate Change" is just a term for Global Warming that the Global Warming nuts use to cover their behinds in the inevitable case their wacky theories turn out to be wrong and the globe actually cools. If they say "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming", they are right either way, and then they can say, "Nyah Nyah Nyah! We told you so!"
It's craziness that will end the world, not Climate Change.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Case Against Obama
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Dictionary defines Circumstantial Evidence as "(Law), evidence obtained from circumstances, which necessarily or usually attend facts of a particular nature, from which arises presumption. According to some authorities circumstantial is distinguished from positive evidence in that the latter is the testimony of eyewitnesses to a fact or the admission of a party; but the prevalent opinion now is that all such testimony is dependent on circumstances for its support."
In a court of law, circumstantial evidence isn't usually enough to secure a conviction, but it is enough to create a presumption of guilt. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the surface, Barack Hussein Obama is looking more and more like someone who is attempting to destroy this country from within. When one begins to put certain circumstantial evidence together, a picture of an anti-American begins to emerge.
Let's consider the evidence, shall we?
Exhibit 1: Obama refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. On it's own, refusal to wear a simple lapel pin of any kind isn't necessarily indicative of un-American sentiment. Perhaps he just doesn't wear any kind of lapel pins as a matter of personal taste. After all, I won't put bumper stickers on my car. That doesn't mean I don't have any opinions. It's simply a matter of personal taste.
But that isn't the only evidence.
Exhibit 2: Obama has been photographed with his hands folded in front of him while the National anthem was being sung. This while the other Democratic candidates were all standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. Again, in and of itself, not proof of un-Americanism.
However...
Exhibit 3: His wife, Michelle announces she has never really been proud to be an American until her husband decided to run for President. Could that be because she knows he intends to undermine the America she apparently hates? Husbands and wives usually share ideals.
Exhibit 4: Obama was born to a Muslim father and partially educated in Muslim schools. He is as familiar with Islam laws and tradition as with Christian traditions. Perhaps, in view of the type of sermons heard in his "church" that he has been exposed to over the last 20+ years, he actually understands Islam teaching more accurately than Christian. And that brings up...
Exhibit 4: His self admitted "spiritual advisor" is an anti-Semitic, anti-American racist hate monger who blames White America for everything he thinks is wrong with the world. Obama has been seen not only attending and listening to these hate filled sermons, but nodding his head in agreement.
Exhibit 5: Obama is close friends with an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayres, of the infamous Weather Underground radical activist organization that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, and other "establishment" structures in the 60's. Mr. Ayres has admitted he committed these crimes and feels he didn't do enough.
Exhibit 6: Obama has stated when president, he will sit down with terrorist nations and terrorist leaders to negotiate a peace. Anyone who pays even cursory attention to the news knows there is no negotiation with terrorists, short of agreeing to their demands, which are: 1. Convert to Islam or--2. Die. They offer no other option. If Obama intends to negotiate a peace with terrorists, he will have to agree to their demands or he will not succeed.
Exhibit 7: He has stated he will invade and attack our allies and talk to our enemies.
Exhibit 8: He has announced his intent to cut Defense funding, to the point where our military will be woefully unable to defend America in case of attack.
Exhibit 9: He wants to outlaw all guns, leaving Americans without an ability to defend ourselves against attacks from forces who will have become emboldened by the decimation of our military.
Exhibit 9: He is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom are not just flooding across our borders in search of a better life for their families, but instead, have insidious terrorist plots in mind.
Exhibit 10: Obama has been quoted saying, "I revere the flag. I revere America." The word "revere" Means respect. Am I the only one who thinks "revere" is an odd choice of words?
Why can't Obama say he loves America? How difficult can pronouncing that word, "love" be? Could it be because he doesn't?
If Obama were on trial for treason, would there be enough evidence to convict him? Probably not, but it certainly raises some compelling questions about him.
As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, it seems I could make a pretty strong case, based on circumstantial evidence, that Barack Hussein Obama is involved in some insidious plot to destroy America and hand us over to the Islamic Jihadists for destruction.
Ridiculous? Wild conjecture? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
The Dictionary defines Circumstantial Evidence as "(Law), evidence obtained from circumstances, which necessarily or usually attend facts of a particular nature, from which arises presumption. According to some authorities circumstantial is distinguished from positive evidence in that the latter is the testimony of eyewitnesses to a fact or the admission of a party; but the prevalent opinion now is that all such testimony is dependent on circumstances for its support."
In a court of law, circumstantial evidence isn't usually enough to secure a conviction, but it is enough to create a presumption of guilt. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the surface, Barack Hussein Obama is looking more and more like someone who is attempting to destroy this country from within. When one begins to put certain circumstantial evidence together, a picture of an anti-American begins to emerge.
Let's consider the evidence, shall we?
Exhibit 1: Obama refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. On it's own, refusal to wear a simple lapel pin of any kind isn't necessarily indicative of un-American sentiment. Perhaps he just doesn't wear any kind of lapel pins as a matter of personal taste. After all, I won't put bumper stickers on my car. That doesn't mean I don't have any opinions. It's simply a matter of personal taste.
But that isn't the only evidence.
Exhibit 2: Obama has been photographed with his hands folded in front of him while the National anthem was being sung. This while the other Democratic candidates were all standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. Again, in and of itself, not proof of un-Americanism.
However...
Exhibit 3: His wife, Michelle announces she has never really been proud to be an American until her husband decided to run for President. Could that be because she knows he intends to undermine the America she apparently hates? Husbands and wives usually share ideals.
Exhibit 4: Obama was born to a Muslim father and partially educated in Muslim schools. He is as familiar with Islam laws and tradition as with Christian traditions. Perhaps, in view of the type of sermons heard in his "church" that he has been exposed to over the last 20+ years, he actually understands Islam teaching more accurately than Christian. And that brings up...
Exhibit 4: His self admitted "spiritual advisor" is an anti-Semitic, anti-American racist hate monger who blames White America for everything he thinks is wrong with the world. Obama has been seen not only attending and listening to these hate filled sermons, but nodding his head in agreement.
Exhibit 5: Obama is close friends with an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayres, of the infamous Weather Underground radical activist organization that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, and other "establishment" structures in the 60's. Mr. Ayres has admitted he committed these crimes and feels he didn't do enough.
Exhibit 6: Obama has stated when president, he will sit down with terrorist nations and terrorist leaders to negotiate a peace. Anyone who pays even cursory attention to the news knows there is no negotiation with terrorists, short of agreeing to their demands, which are: 1. Convert to Islam or--2. Die. They offer no other option. If Obama intends to negotiate a peace with terrorists, he will have to agree to their demands or he will not succeed.
Exhibit 7: He has stated he will invade and attack our allies and talk to our enemies.
Exhibit 8: He has announced his intent to cut Defense funding, to the point where our military will be woefully unable to defend America in case of attack.
Exhibit 9: He wants to outlaw all guns, leaving Americans without an ability to defend ourselves against attacks from forces who will have become emboldened by the decimation of our military.
Exhibit 9: He is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom are not just flooding across our borders in search of a better life for their families, but instead, have insidious terrorist plots in mind.
Exhibit 10: Obama has been quoted saying, "I revere the flag. I revere America." The word "revere" Means respect. Am I the only one who thinks "revere" is an odd choice of words?
Why can't Obama say he loves America? How difficult can pronouncing that word, "love" be? Could it be because he doesn't?
If Obama were on trial for treason, would there be enough evidence to convict him? Probably not, but it certainly raises some compelling questions about him.
As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, it seems I could make a pretty strong case, based on circumstantial evidence, that Barack Hussein Obama is involved in some insidious plot to destroy America and hand us over to the Islamic Jihadists for destruction.
Ridiculous? Wild conjecture? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hillary And Hussein's Goal
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." ~ Frank Zappa
I found this on Five Boxes, a blog Lone Ranger discovered.
I have highlighted in Bolshevik red the things which they have already achieved and in blue, the things they are in the process of achieving, and my own thoughts in green.
The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963. The list was published in the 1958 book The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.
1. US acceptance of co-existence as the only alternative to atomic war
2. US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites (I don't know about this one)
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
7. Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress (I'm not sure about this one, either. I welcome knowledgeable input by more informed readers)
10. Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN
11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
13. Do away with loyalty oaths
14. Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office(Again, this has probably already been accomplished but I don't know)
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the US (this certainly explains the Democratic party platform well)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers (this may or may not be already accomplished. I am not sure)
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art". (I don't know what this would accomplish, and since art is in the eye of the beholder, I can't say if the prevalence of senseless art in our culture is a result of this directive or not)
23. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (Almost there, but thankfully, not quite yet.)
24. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
25. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy". (I wish I could make this double red)
26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
28. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man". (I don't think we're there yet, but I could be wrong)
30. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (I don't think there is any longer such a committee, but if there isn't, they have accomplished this goal)
34. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
35. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of big business ( would say this could be amended to "Discredit big business", and that would make it red)
37. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
38. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
42. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. (Not sure about this one, unless we could categorize the push by some Democrats to surrender in Iraq here)
42. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
43. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over donations and individuals alike. (I am unfamiliar with the Connally reservation but the rest of this sounds like what's going on now)
I found this on Five Boxes, a blog Lone Ranger discovered.
I have highlighted in Bolshevik red the things which they have already achieved and in blue, the things they are in the process of achieving, and my own thoughts in green.
The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963. The list was published in the 1958 book The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.
1. US acceptance of co-existence as the only alternative to atomic war
2. US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites (I don't know about this one)
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
7. Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress (I'm not sure about this one, either. I welcome knowledgeable input by more informed readers)
10. Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN
11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
13. Do away with loyalty oaths
14. Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office(Again, this has probably already been accomplished but I don't know)
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the US (this certainly explains the Democratic party platform well)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers (this may or may not be already accomplished. I am not sure)
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art". (I don't know what this would accomplish, and since art is in the eye of the beholder, I can't say if the prevalence of senseless art in our culture is a result of this directive or not)
23. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (Almost there, but thankfully, not quite yet.)
24. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
25. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy". (I wish I could make this double red)
26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
28. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man". (I don't think we're there yet, but I could be wrong)
30. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (I don't think there is any longer such a committee, but if there isn't, they have accomplished this goal)
34. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
35. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of big business ( would say this could be amended to "Discredit big business", and that would make it red)
37. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
38. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
42. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. (Not sure about this one, unless we could categorize the push by some Democrats to surrender in Iraq here)
42. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
43. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over donations and individuals alike. (I am unfamiliar with the Connally reservation but the rest of this sounds like what's going on now)
Many of these are subjective according to our interpretation of ideologies, I admit, but even if I am wrong on as many as 2/3 of them, I think it's pretty obvious that we are perilously close to losing America's sovereignty.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Recognizing Cultural Differences Versus Racism
"Facts is facts" ~ Larry the Cable Guy
Probably the only thing I agree with Barack Hussein Obama about is the fact that his skin color shouldn't have any influence on his worthiness to be President. I personally have never considered his race to be a factor for making a decision on whether to vote for him. It is the content of his character, not his color, that concerns me.
And, in my humble opinion, his positions on the variety of vitally important issues disqualifies him from being a capable leader of my country.
I don't dislike him because he is black. I dislike him because he is completely wrong for this country.
My personal opinion notwithstanding, B. Hussein's campaign has made it crystal clear that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to lead.
Or does it?
Over at Obama's official web site, the words color, race, minority, etc, pepper all of his media offerings. See for yourself. It would appear Obama intends to ride the wave of racism and white guilt all the way into the oval office. (for a laughable definition of "white Guilt" see Wikipedia's Liberally biased offering, here )
For someone who continually insists that his skin color doesn't make a difference he certainly expends a lot of energy attempting to point his ethnicity out to potential voters.
I have avoided discussing race in general because to do so would automatically bring accusations of racism and bigotry against me and anyone who might appear to agree with me, but since Obama's campaign has brought the subject up, I might as well toss in my two cents worth.
A couple of days ago, I heard a talk radio host ask a caller if he was black or white, and it occurred to me that we as a society have become politically correct to the point of absurdity.
Here's the impetus for the previous statement:
The caller had an unmistakable "black" accent. Even the best white impressionists cannot "fake" a black accent that well. The caller was black. That fact was obvious to even the most passive listener. The host didn't need to ask. And yet, he did.
No matter how a black man tries to hide a black accent, anyone who listens closely can detect the inflections of a black accent in his voice. With the exceptions of non-American blacks, such as British blacks, one only has to listen to know that whomever is talking is black.
I will never refer to any black person as "articulate". That is a term many racist white people use to avoid being called racist. It is a subtle racial epithet. It implies that most black people are not "articulate".
Listen to Alan Keyes, or Colin Powell, or Condaleeza Rice, or Bill Cosby sometime. Really listen. The accent is there.
That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.
As much as we wish to deny it, there are differences in black and white cultures. There are differences in all cultures, and it extends well beyond the obvious differences of skin color and accents in speech. There is no shame or honor in being different in any way.
All men, as God and the Declaration of Independence have so ably pointed out, are created equal.
But, as much as we would like to, inherent differences in racial cultures cannot be denied or even ignored.
And it's not racist to point it out. It is simply fact. It isn't an insult or a compliment.
In my estimation, pretending not to notice the obvious differences between race and culture is racist in and of itself. A couple of years ago, a black lawyer published an article in several newspapers in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday entitled, "America Should Honor The Teaching Of King", in which he equates poverty with being black. This is, of course, an opinion based on a racist viewpoint. Obviously, blacks are not the only people in America who are poor, but if one reads the essay, one gets that impression from the author.
On the other hand, whites, as a society, have become so race conscious that the pendulum has swung from blatant, mindless racism to oversensitivity about offensiveness well past the point of absurdity.
Differences in cultures create stereotypes. Stereotypes have basis in fact, or at least in our perception of the things we observe. For example:
In my dealings with the public throughout my life, I have observed certain behaviors that appear to be inherent in the black culture. They are not bad things. They are just inherent differences. Many black people stay up late at night and sleep late in the mornings, often into the afternoon if they don't have to work the next day.
That is not a negative or a positive. It is simply fact based on my personal observations over the years. And it's not exclusive to the black race. It is just more prevalent in the black race than in the white race from what I've observed.
There are more cultural differences between blacks and whites I've observed. Blacks seem to use the telephone more than whites. I don't know why, but they do. Again, it isn't a bad thing. Maybe they just have more friends than white people. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Blacks appear to be more emotionally demonstrative and passionate than whites in general. This is not true of all blacks and it isn't true of all whites, either, but it appears to be more prevalent in the black culture. Again, these things are based upon my own personal observance.
Blacks, for the most part, dress up for church more (and better) than whites. And, in my opinion, they are generally more respectful of God in the way they dress. It is a positive cultural aspect of growing up in an environment that teaches their children to dress up out of respect for God.
That is definitely not a bad thing.
My bride says she prefers white hairdressers over black hairdressers because black hair is different and requires different styling and cutting techniques. White hairdressers are usually better at styling white people's hair and blacks are usually better with black people's hair. That isn't racist. It is just fact.
It is not a coincidence that manufacturers of menthol cigarettes, malt liquors, and certain clothing designs place advertisements for their products in predominately black neighborhoods and publications. These advertisements are results of market research, which tells the advertisers that targeting the black market will generate more profit for their clients.
This targeting of the black market is based on cultural observation. It is intelligent marketing, not racism.
When someone points out there are differences between black and white cultures, it doesn't make that someone a racist.
It is time we stop pretending that noticing those differences somehow makes one a racist.
Probably the only thing I agree with Barack Hussein Obama about is the fact that his skin color shouldn't have any influence on his worthiness to be President. I personally have never considered his race to be a factor for making a decision on whether to vote for him. It is the content of his character, not his color, that concerns me.
And, in my humble opinion, his positions on the variety of vitally important issues disqualifies him from being a capable leader of my country.
I don't dislike him because he is black. I dislike him because he is completely wrong for this country.
My personal opinion notwithstanding, B. Hussein's campaign has made it crystal clear that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to lead.
Or does it?
Over at Obama's official web site, the words color, race, minority, etc, pepper all of his media offerings. See for yourself. It would appear Obama intends to ride the wave of racism and white guilt all the way into the oval office. (for a laughable definition of "white Guilt" see Wikipedia's Liberally biased offering, here )
For someone who continually insists that his skin color doesn't make a difference he certainly expends a lot of energy attempting to point his ethnicity out to potential voters.
I have avoided discussing race in general because to do so would automatically bring accusations of racism and bigotry against me and anyone who might appear to agree with me, but since Obama's campaign has brought the subject up, I might as well toss in my two cents worth.
A couple of days ago, I heard a talk radio host ask a caller if he was black or white, and it occurred to me that we as a society have become politically correct to the point of absurdity.
Here's the impetus for the previous statement:
The caller had an unmistakable "black" accent. Even the best white impressionists cannot "fake" a black accent that well. The caller was black. That fact was obvious to even the most passive listener. The host didn't need to ask. And yet, he did.
No matter how a black man tries to hide a black accent, anyone who listens closely can detect the inflections of a black accent in his voice. With the exceptions of non-American blacks, such as British blacks, one only has to listen to know that whomever is talking is black.
I will never refer to any black person as "articulate". That is a term many racist white people use to avoid being called racist. It is a subtle racial epithet. It implies that most black people are not "articulate".
Listen to Alan Keyes, or Colin Powell, or Condaleeza Rice, or Bill Cosby sometime. Really listen. The accent is there.
That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.
As much as we wish to deny it, there are differences in black and white cultures. There are differences in all cultures, and it extends well beyond the obvious differences of skin color and accents in speech. There is no shame or honor in being different in any way.
All men, as God and the Declaration of Independence have so ably pointed out, are created equal.
But, as much as we would like to, inherent differences in racial cultures cannot be denied or even ignored.
And it's not racist to point it out. It is simply fact. It isn't an insult or a compliment.
In my estimation, pretending not to notice the obvious differences between race and culture is racist in and of itself. A couple of years ago, a black lawyer published an article in several newspapers in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday entitled, "America Should Honor The Teaching Of King", in which he equates poverty with being black. This is, of course, an opinion based on a racist viewpoint. Obviously, blacks are not the only people in America who are poor, but if one reads the essay, one gets that impression from the author.
On the other hand, whites, as a society, have become so race conscious that the pendulum has swung from blatant, mindless racism to oversensitivity about offensiveness well past the point of absurdity.
Differences in cultures create stereotypes. Stereotypes have basis in fact, or at least in our perception of the things we observe. For example:
In my dealings with the public throughout my life, I have observed certain behaviors that appear to be inherent in the black culture. They are not bad things. They are just inherent differences. Many black people stay up late at night and sleep late in the mornings, often into the afternoon if they don't have to work the next day.
That is not a negative or a positive. It is simply fact based on my personal observations over the years. And it's not exclusive to the black race. It is just more prevalent in the black race than in the white race from what I've observed.
There are more cultural differences between blacks and whites I've observed. Blacks seem to use the telephone more than whites. I don't know why, but they do. Again, it isn't a bad thing. Maybe they just have more friends than white people. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Blacks appear to be more emotionally demonstrative and passionate than whites in general. This is not true of all blacks and it isn't true of all whites, either, but it appears to be more prevalent in the black culture. Again, these things are based upon my own personal observance.
Blacks, for the most part, dress up for church more (and better) than whites. And, in my opinion, they are generally more respectful of God in the way they dress. It is a positive cultural aspect of growing up in an environment that teaches their children to dress up out of respect for God.
That is definitely not a bad thing.
My bride says she prefers white hairdressers over black hairdressers because black hair is different and requires different styling and cutting techniques. White hairdressers are usually better at styling white people's hair and blacks are usually better with black people's hair. That isn't racist. It is just fact.
It is not a coincidence that manufacturers of menthol cigarettes, malt liquors, and certain clothing designs place advertisements for their products in predominately black neighborhoods and publications. These advertisements are results of market research, which tells the advertisers that targeting the black market will generate more profit for their clients.
This targeting of the black market is based on cultural observation. It is intelligent marketing, not racism.
When someone points out there are differences between black and white cultures, it doesn't make that someone a racist.
It is time we stop pretending that noticing those differences somehow makes one a racist.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Just Married
"I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life." ~ Rita Rudner
I haven't posted lately, or even moderated because I have been on my honeymoon.
Yes, I've remarried.
I haven't posted lately, or even moderated because I have been on my honeymoon.
Yes, I've remarried.
My new bride and I.Check out my tie. It is my clan (Gunn) tartan plaid, ordered directly from Scotland.
I am woefully behind on my blogging, and it will be a few days yet before I can return to more than a comment or two on my favorite blogs.
I have created a new post on my other blog, Gods way/My way concerning a disturbing video about Oprah Winfrey my brother e-mailed me.
I'll see you later.
Friday, April 04, 2008
More Questions
"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane
So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":
(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)
"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."
So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?
Because they are bad policies. Duh.
DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.
"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."
This, of course, is an absurd lie.
A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.
Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)
As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:
"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"
This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.
Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.
"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?
No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.
"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.
Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.
"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.
Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.
"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.
OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?
A quick google search produced this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".
Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:
Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?
Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?
Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.
Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?
In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?
When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?
When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?
When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?
When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?
When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?
When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?
Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.
So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":
(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)
"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."
So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?
Because they are bad policies. Duh.
DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.
"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."
This, of course, is an absurd lie.
A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.
Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)
As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:
"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"
This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.
Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.
"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?
No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.
"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.
Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.
"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.
Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.
"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.
OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?
A quick google search produced this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".
Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:
Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?
Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?
Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.
Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?
In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?
When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?
When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?
When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?
When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?
When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?
When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?
Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Obama: Bad For America
"Everyone rises to their level of incompetence. " ~ Laurence J. Peter
I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Best Damn Comedy Show Ever
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." ~ Will Rogers
I know I've used the above quotation before but up until now,it hasn't been more appropriate than it is today. All of the news about the two Democratic candidates for President just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Seriously.
First, it has been revealed that Barack Hussein Obama is not only a racist but also a liar, and now the "smartest woman in America" has proven she is not only a liar, but a very bad liar at that.
B. Hussein Obama seriously expects us to believe he didn't know his "spiritual advisor" was making such racist, hateful statements over the last twenty years. Not only that, but he has now added a whole new phrase into the English language that is now synonymous with discrimination:
"Typical white person".
Now, instead of calling white people "crackers", "White Devils", "peckerwoods", etc, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, and Barack Hussein Obama can just say white people are "typical".
Has it occurred to anyone that the word, "typical" happens to be the suffix in a longer word: "Stereotypical"?
And now, the "smartest woman in America" is beginning to look more and more like the "stupidest woman in America".
Any way you look at it, she looks stupid. Either she's making up stories that require a "willful suspension of disbelief" because she doesn't know any better, or she is just so arrogant that she expects clear thinking Americans (that's all Americans except Liberal Democrats) to believe her fantasies, it makes no difference. Either way, she's stupid.
This is funnier than watching a one-legged man in a brewery making hops.
Her newest lie is that she was "mistaken" . She just forgot she wasn't really shot at in Bosnia. Oh yeah, that's an easy thing to forget. I know I'd probably forget that something didn't happen. Especially when the thing that didn't happen would have been so memorable if it had happened.
And if that isn't improbable enough, The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."
Add to that, Send the President's 15 year old daughter, too. I mean, what the heck? If Hillary can handle it, why can't Chelsea?
What kind of President--actually--what kind of man would send his wife and daughter into potentially dangerous situations? The more one examines Hillary's bizarre statements, the more ridiculous they become.
And Liberal Democrats continue to support these phonies.
Maybe that's the funniest thing of all.
It's absolutely side-splitting!
Do you know what's not funny, though?
There are so many empty headed Liberal Democrat morons in America, that both of these two idiots still have a legitimate chance of becoming President of the United States!
I know I've used the above quotation before but up until now,it hasn't been more appropriate than it is today. All of the news about the two Democratic candidates for President just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Seriously.
First, it has been revealed that Barack Hussein Obama is not only a racist but also a liar, and now the "smartest woman in America" has proven she is not only a liar, but a very bad liar at that.
B. Hussein Obama seriously expects us to believe he didn't know his "spiritual advisor" was making such racist, hateful statements over the last twenty years. Not only that, but he has now added a whole new phrase into the English language that is now synonymous with discrimination:
"Typical white person".
Now, instead of calling white people "crackers", "White Devils", "peckerwoods", etc, Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, and Barack Hussein Obama can just say white people are "typical".
Has it occurred to anyone that the word, "typical" happens to be the suffix in a longer word: "Stereotypical"?
And now, the "smartest woman in America" is beginning to look more and more like the "stupidest woman in America".
Any way you look at it, she looks stupid. Either she's making up stories that require a "willful suspension of disbelief" because she doesn't know any better, or she is just so arrogant that she expects clear thinking Americans (that's all Americans except Liberal Democrats) to believe her fantasies, it makes no difference. Either way, she's stupid.
This is funnier than watching a one-legged man in a brewery making hops.
Her newest lie is that she was "mistaken" . She just forgot she wasn't really shot at in Bosnia. Oh yeah, that's an easy thing to forget. I know I'd probably forget that something didn't happen. Especially when the thing that didn't happen would have been so memorable if it had happened.
And if that isn't improbable enough, The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."
Add to that, Send the President's 15 year old daughter, too. I mean, what the heck? If Hillary can handle it, why can't Chelsea?
What kind of President--actually--what kind of man would send his wife and daughter into potentially dangerous situations? The more one examines Hillary's bizarre statements, the more ridiculous they become.
And Liberal Democrats continue to support these phonies.
Maybe that's the funniest thing of all.
It's absolutely side-splitting!
Do you know what's not funny, though?
There are so many empty headed Liberal Democrat morons in America, that both of these two idiots still have a legitimate chance of becoming President of the United States!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Thoughts From A Typical White Person
"Unless man is committed to the belief that all mankind are his brothers, then he labors in vain and hypocritically in the vineyards of equality." ~ Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
After creating several posts wherein I pointed out Barack Hussein Obama's multiple shortcomings and lack of qualifications to be President, I was all set to, as our Liberal Democrat friends say, "move on". Even after Obama's latest gaffe, in which he called his white grandmother a "typical white person", I was still ready to discuss other subjects. That is, until I listened to Glenn Beck's radio program this morning.
After creating several posts wherein I pointed out Barack Hussein Obama's multiple shortcomings and lack of qualifications to be President, I was all set to, as our Liberal Democrat friends say, "move on". Even after Obama's latest gaffe, in which he called his white grandmother a "typical white person", I was still ready to discuss other subjects. That is, until I listened to Glenn Beck's radio program this morning.
I'm still chuckling.
A caller called in and explained that, as a typical white person, he was terrified of black people. So terrified, in fact, that the only thing that would ease his fear was the playing of music by Air Supply.
Of course, it was a comedy bit.
They played the fear of black people act way too long, but it hammered home an important point.
I must not be a typical white person since I wasn't offended by Obama's description of his grandmother's fear of black people. I'm still not offended.
How can one be offended by ignorance?
I've never been offended by the appellation "cracker", or "whitey", or "peckerwood". Why should being branded as "typical" offend me?
Because it carries the same connotation to me, a white man, as using the phrase, "you people" does to blacks.
So, I should be offended.
Beck reminded his listeners of Jimmy the Greek, a former bookmaker and commentator on some television sports program. For those who don't remember the story, Jimmy was fired from the sports program because he committed the unpardonable sin of voicing his belief that black athletes are stronger and faster than white athletes because it was "bred into them" . You know, just as Obama's grandmother's racism was "bred" into her. Jimmy the Greek was fired for making a personal observation. He may have been wrong or he may have been right. It makes no difference. In today's politically correct environment, he still had to be fired.
Obama has not been fired, or even questioned, for using the same language to describe his racist grandmother.
Then I realized if I had described any black person as "typical", I would have likely been arrested, tried, and thrown into the clink for committing a hate crime before I had time to spit.
And yet Hussein gets a pass by his Liberal Democrat Obamorons.
Jesse Jackson once said he would have felt afraid if he was confronted by a group of black men in a dark alley at night, and wouldn't have been as afraid if the same group were white. Does that make Jesse Jackson a "typical white person"?
Exactly what is a "typical white person"?
Apparently, Barry Hussein Obama would have us believe a typical white person cowers in fear at the sight of black people.
Just after listening to that segment of Glenn Beck's radio program, I was in a jewelry store when a FedEx driver entered and dropped off a package at the counter. He was black. I wasn't afraid of him.
I guess I'm not typical.
You know? I see black people every day. Sometimes I see them in large groups. Up until now, it never occurred to me to be afraid of them. Up until now, I've rarely taken note of the color of a person's skin. Unless they are specifically drawing my attention to their skin color.
Now, walking down a dark street through a gauntlet of people dressed and behaving like thugs makes me a little nervous, I admit. But that's because they are thugs. Skin pigmentation has nothing to do with how I react to their presence. Thugs can be white, too, and often are.
So now, Obama, who has been running as the candidate of "unification", has proven himself to be just as divisive as say... David Duke. Or Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Are the Liberal Democrat Obamorons ready to recognise his hypocrisy yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
