"The present occupant of the White House assumed residence while refusing to provide credible evidence that he is in fact constitutionally qualified to serve as President." ~ Alan Keyes
One of the big controversies that just won't seem to go away concerning Barack Hussein Obama is the one about his citizenship, and thus, his qualification to be President of the United States.
Dr. Alan Keyes is one of many who have filed suit alleging Obama is not an American citizen.
If Barack Hussein Obama was not born in the United States as some have charged, is he qualified to be President or not?
I have said I have always thought as long as one has at least one parent who is an American citizen, one is considered a naturally born American citizen and that should settle the issue, but upon researching what the Constitution actually has to say about it, I can now see why there is some confusion.
From Article II, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
What constitutes a “natural born” Citizen?
For that, we have to look at the fourteenth Amendment, to wit:
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That's it. That's all it says. That doesn't yet tell us everything we need to know, does it?
A President cannot be a naturalized citizen. He must be “natural born”, but the Constitution does not specify exactly what defines “natural born“.
I had always believed one only had to be born of at least one parent who is an American citizen, no matter what country he was born in to be a natural born American citizen, but the Constitution makes no such specification.
So, there must be a more specific definition of what constitutes an American citizen somewhere, shouldn't there?.
There is. In the U.S. Code.
According to the U.S. Code § 1401:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(this provision covers Sen. John McCain's qualification, regardless of what the Liberals say)
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person.
I don’t know if some of these provisions apply to Obama’s qualifications to be President, but, at least one of them would, regardless. Unless Obama’s mother didn’t satisfy the requirements pertaining to the length of continuous time spent in the United States, and that, I don’t know.
Q.E.D. It would appear that Obama is indeed a natural born American citizen, his suspect forged “certificate of live birth” notwithstanding.
If we need legal justification for removing Obama from the Presidency (and I believe he needs to be removed), it might be better to read further into the fourteenth amendment. There does appear to be a justification for questioning the qualifications of Obama to be President, to wit:
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
Obama has absolutely offered aid and comfort to America’s enemies with his overtures to Hamas and Iran, and his seeming commitment to facilitating further terrorists attacks on America, by dismantling the safeguards set up by the Bush administration, and cutting the budget for the military.
That alone should disqualify him to be President, depending on how one interprets the phrase “aid or comfort”.
Of course, if the multiple lawsuits raising questions about Obama's citizenship are successful in removing him from office, I would be comfortable with that as well.
As long as he goes.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Lunatic Has Taken Over The Asylum
"I won" ~ Barrack Hussein Obama
I read this piece over at Trader Rick's blog. Rick often posts things he received through e-mail. At first, I did nothing with it. Often times, things sent through e-mail are simply not true. So, I initially dismissed it, thinking it either wasn't important, or worse, not factual.
But, I couldn't get it out of my mind. So I looked up Dr. Samuel Vaknin on Google and found a wealth of information about him. He is what he portrays himself to be. An expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He knows what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: This entire article was not written by Dr. Vaknin. Only the parts in italics are actual quotes from Dr. Vaknin. He is not a Doctor of Psychology, but he has written several books and papers on the subject of narcissism. The author of the article referenced by the e-mail, on Trader Rick's blog, that was quoted in the e-mail, as it has been pointed out, is Ali Sina.
Dr. Vaknin States:
"I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness, but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi 'religious' impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming...
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "The Malignant Self Love" believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.
Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children - was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin.
"Mixed-race marriages were even less common, then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing Personality that it overwhelms those around them.
Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. (remember how Obama ignored the victims of last month's ice storm in the south?)
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father." Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why?
Because his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.
What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today, the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
The great majority of blacks have also voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster - I predict he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades.
America is the bastion of freedom.
The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America - are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
This is an important revelation. I believe Obama is as dangerous to America as Hitler was to Germany, as Stalin was to Russia, as Chairman Mao was to China, etc.
If he is allowed to continue to manipulate America and Americans so recklessly unchecked he will destroy America.
h/t: Trader Rick
I read this piece over at Trader Rick's blog. Rick often posts things he received through e-mail. At first, I did nothing with it. Often times, things sent through e-mail are simply not true. So, I initially dismissed it, thinking it either wasn't important, or worse, not factual.
But, I couldn't get it out of my mind. So I looked up Dr. Samuel Vaknin on Google and found a wealth of information about him. He is what he portrays himself to be. An expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He knows what he's talking about.
Disclaimer: This entire article was not written by Dr. Vaknin. Only the parts in italics are actual quotes from Dr. Vaknin. He is not a Doctor of Psychology, but he has written several books and papers on the subject of narcissism. The author of the article referenced by the e-mail, on Trader Rick's blog, that was quoted in the e-mail, as it has been pointed out, is Ali Sina.
Dr. Vaknin States:
"I must confess I was impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first, I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness, but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words."
Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi 'religious' impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming...
Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "The Malignant Self Love" believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."
Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens.
Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children - was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin.
"Mixed-race marriages were even less common, then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then, his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing Personality that it overwhelms those around them.
Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents.
Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention. (remember how Obama ignored the victims of last month's ice storm in the south?)
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong.
Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what?
His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father." Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why?
Because his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.
A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake.
What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed.
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.
Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.
Today, the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.
The great majority of blacks have also voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster - I predict he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's. Obama will set the clock back decades.
America is the bastion of freedom.
The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America - are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
This is an important revelation. I believe Obama is as dangerous to America as Hitler was to Germany, as Stalin was to Russia, as Chairman Mao was to China, etc.
If he is allowed to continue to manipulate America and Americans so recklessly unchecked he will destroy America.
h/t: Trader Rick
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Blog Addition
"I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect." ~ Dr. Alan Keyes
I've just added another blog to my blogroll. It is hosted by Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the UN, and (at least) two time unsuccessful candidate for President. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Keyes, and would have voted for him for President years ago if I thought he had any viable solutions. By that I mean, he was dead on in diagnosing what was wrong with American politics and ideologies, but he didn't seem to know what to do to solve them. At least, he failed to offer solutions to the problems. In short, he had plenty of thought provoking questions but not enough answers to win my vote.
Be that as it may, Dr. Keyes has a clear view of what is wrong with the Obama administration and Liberal politics in general.
Dr. Keyes is also one of many plantiffs in lawsuits brought that seek definite proof of Obama's citizenship in regard to his qualifications to serve as President of these United States of America.
Personally, I believe Obama is a legal citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born to an American citizen, his mother. There is no doubt she was a citizen, so by law, he is also an American citizen. Like it or not.
I don't always agree with Dr. Keyes on some issues, but I deeply respect and admire the man for his dedication to Liberty. And, I believe he is sincere, a quality rarely seen in politicians today.
Please visit his site.
I've just added another blog to my blogroll. It is hosted by Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador to the UN, and (at least) two time unsuccessful candidate for President. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Keyes, and would have voted for him for President years ago if I thought he had any viable solutions. By that I mean, he was dead on in diagnosing what was wrong with American politics and ideologies, but he didn't seem to know what to do to solve them. At least, he failed to offer solutions to the problems. In short, he had plenty of thought provoking questions but not enough answers to win my vote.
Be that as it may, Dr. Keyes has a clear view of what is wrong with the Obama administration and Liberal politics in general.
Dr. Keyes is also one of many plantiffs in lawsuits brought that seek definite proof of Obama's citizenship in regard to his qualifications to serve as President of these United States of America.
Personally, I believe Obama is a legal citizen by virtue of the fact that he was born to an American citizen, his mother. There is no doubt she was a citizen, so by law, he is also an American citizen. Like it or not.
I don't always agree with Dr. Keyes on some issues, but I deeply respect and admire the man for his dedication to Liberty. And, I believe he is sincere, a quality rarely seen in politicians today.
Please visit his site.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Fifty-Two Per Cent
"They think we're stupid". ~ Laura Ingraham
That opening statement from Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing" has never been better demonstrated than it is now with Barack Hussein Obama.
On Election day, last November, 52% (reportedly) of Americans proved Obama was at least partially correct. Apparently, at least 52% of Americans really are stupid.
They voted for Obama despite all the evidence that he has no experience, no substance, no pride in America, and no qualifications. And yet 52% believed he was preferable to a genuine American hero.
He has demonstrated for years that he is a Marxist, and that he intends to create a Marxist state of the United States, but still 52% of Americans voted for him.
All the evidence was there in his questionable associations, his grandiose promises of "hope and change", while offering no glimpse of how he was going to accomplish these miracles, plus, most Conservatives such as myself, warned Americans that he is a danger to the American way of life, but to no avail. 52% ignored the warnings and the evidence.
He relied heavily on his belief that most Americans are willfully uninformed. And 52% of them obviously are.
Now that he is ensconced as President, we are witnessing the Socialization of America right before our very eyes in the form of this so-called stimulus bill.
They (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc) trumpeted the benefits of this bill, citing the creation of millions of jobs, and the free flow of money into our economy that somehow was going to kick start the faltering economy and get it up and running like a well-oiled machine again.
Now, the language of his adoring minions in the media has changed somewhat. Now, they are saying the bill will create or "save" millions of existing jobs.
Note the subtle change. Now, maybe the bill won't actually create jobs. Now, maybe it will only save existing jobs. Maybe it will do both. Maybe it will do neither. None of us can be sure.
But, we are being asked to throw caution to the winds and blindly accept this concept, which is a crap shoot at best.
One thing I'm sure of, is that our nation, if this bill is implemented, will become a Communist collective, and our freedom and liberties will fall by the wayside. Once Obama gets to decide who gets what, there will be no stopping him. He will create an obligation in us to which we must acquiesce.
"If I give you x amount of money, you must in turn, do as I say. That is the price of my generosity".
His goal is complete, total, control.
That opening statement from Laura Ingraham's book, "Shut Up and Sing" has never been better demonstrated than it is now with Barack Hussein Obama.
On Election day, last November, 52% (reportedly) of Americans proved Obama was at least partially correct. Apparently, at least 52% of Americans really are stupid.
They voted for Obama despite all the evidence that he has no experience, no substance, no pride in America, and no qualifications. And yet 52% believed he was preferable to a genuine American hero.
He has demonstrated for years that he is a Marxist, and that he intends to create a Marxist state of the United States, but still 52% of Americans voted for him.
All the evidence was there in his questionable associations, his grandiose promises of "hope and change", while offering no glimpse of how he was going to accomplish these miracles, plus, most Conservatives such as myself, warned Americans that he is a danger to the American way of life, but to no avail. 52% ignored the warnings and the evidence.
He relied heavily on his belief that most Americans are willfully uninformed. And 52% of them obviously are.
Now that he is ensconced as President, we are witnessing the Socialization of America right before our very eyes in the form of this so-called stimulus bill.
They (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc) trumpeted the benefits of this bill, citing the creation of millions of jobs, and the free flow of money into our economy that somehow was going to kick start the faltering economy and get it up and running like a well-oiled machine again.
Now, the language of his adoring minions in the media has changed somewhat. Now, they are saying the bill will create or "save" millions of existing jobs.
Note the subtle change. Now, maybe the bill won't actually create jobs. Now, maybe it will only save existing jobs. Maybe it will do both. Maybe it will do neither. None of us can be sure.
But, we are being asked to throw caution to the winds and blindly accept this concept, which is a crap shoot at best.
One thing I'm sure of, is that our nation, if this bill is implemented, will become a Communist collective, and our freedom and liberties will fall by the wayside. Once Obama gets to decide who gets what, there will be no stopping him. He will create an obligation in us to which we must acquiesce.
"If I give you x amount of money, you must in turn, do as I say. That is the price of my generosity".
His goal is complete, total, control.
Why don't Obama's fawning supporters see what he's doing? With this bill, he is in effect taking over control of every business in America. He will set the prices on goods and services. He will decide how much the workers earn. He will decide how much and what we can buy for our families. He will kill some industries such as oil and coal. He will dismantle our military. He will repeal the legislation that has kept us safe from terrorists attacks since 9/11. He will legitimize infanticide. He will ban the ownership of any type of firearm. He will squelch any speech that voices opposition to him or his policies.
The wheels are already in motion to accomplish those last two.
From there, it is a small step to re-education camps, forced labor, abolishing all dissension, purges, executions, and "dictator for life".
Fasten your seat belts. We're in for a bumpy ride. But, this time, we may not survive.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My Stimulus Plan
"There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." ~ Chester Bowles
I might have missed it, or maybe the media isn't covering it out of embarrassment or something, but I believe Barack Hussein Obama's so-called stimulus bill has yet to pass the Senate.
It really doesn't matter if it has or hasn't. Since nobody who can make an actual difference reads this blog anyway, I can go ahead and offer my plan for stimulating the economy.
Perhaps the damage has already been done, but I'm going to offer my poorly thought out economic stimulus plan anyway:
As long as Obama's adoring Liberal Democrat lawmakers are going to allocate spending around 1.2 trillion dollars anyway, I think I have a better idea as to who should receive the money than the various pork projects currently being considered.
Give it directly to the American people. Simple as that.
There are approximately 305,787,883 people in the United States now, a little more since I started writing this post.
That's $3,934.00 more or less for every man, woman, and child in America. Now, everyone has almost $4,000.00 to do whatever they want to do with the money.
This should stimulate the economy.
We could buy things we need, or only want. We can get health care. We can get educations. We can collect fine works of art. We can pay our mortgage payments. We can build buildings. Or move into new buildings. Even if all we do is stick the money into a savings account and don't touch it for years.
The banks can use that money to pay their executive's salaries.
In short, we, as a people can use that money to accomplish everything Obama and his Democrat buddies want to accomplish. The only difference is, it will be accomplished freely and voluntarily by the American people, and not be extracted from our already light pockets by force.
Families with many children would get more than single people or families with no children. But that's how it should be, right? The more people in a family, the more money it takes to feed them. That money-grubbing woman in California who has multiple children merely to capitalize on Americans generosity will get $60,000.00.
That should keep her in diapers for a couple of years, leaving her welfare checks to buy food and clothing.
The rich will get $3900+. The poor will get $3900+. All God's children get $3900+.
I could get a used car in better shape than the one I currently drive. That helps the used car dealers. And, it helps me.
Best of all, this idea comes as close to Obama's Socialist idea of redistribution of wealth as we could ever hope.
The only way we could realize Obama's dream of a level playing field is to take all the money away from all the people first, and then divide it evenly among every man, woman, and child in America, but that would be problematic at best. Impossible at worst.
This idea is much simpler.
And if Obama has proven anything, it is that he is simple.
I might have missed it, or maybe the media isn't covering it out of embarrassment or something, but I believe Barack Hussein Obama's so-called stimulus bill has yet to pass the Senate.
It really doesn't matter if it has or hasn't. Since nobody who can make an actual difference reads this blog anyway, I can go ahead and offer my plan for stimulating the economy.
Perhaps the damage has already been done, but I'm going to offer my poorly thought out economic stimulus plan anyway:
As long as Obama's adoring Liberal Democrat lawmakers are going to allocate spending around 1.2 trillion dollars anyway, I think I have a better idea as to who should receive the money than the various pork projects currently being considered.
Give it directly to the American people. Simple as that.
There are approximately 305,787,883 people in the United States now, a little more since I started writing this post.
That's $3,934.00 more or less for every man, woman, and child in America. Now, everyone has almost $4,000.00 to do whatever they want to do with the money.
This should stimulate the economy.
We could buy things we need, or only want. We can get health care. We can get educations. We can collect fine works of art. We can pay our mortgage payments. We can build buildings. Or move into new buildings. Even if all we do is stick the money into a savings account and don't touch it for years.
The banks can use that money to pay their executive's salaries.
In short, we, as a people can use that money to accomplish everything Obama and his Democrat buddies want to accomplish. The only difference is, it will be accomplished freely and voluntarily by the American people, and not be extracted from our already light pockets by force.
Families with many children would get more than single people or families with no children. But that's how it should be, right? The more people in a family, the more money it takes to feed them. That money-grubbing woman in California who has multiple children merely to capitalize on Americans generosity will get $60,000.00.
That should keep her in diapers for a couple of years, leaving her welfare checks to buy food and clothing.
The rich will get $3900+. The poor will get $3900+. All God's children get $3900+.
I could get a used car in better shape than the one I currently drive. That helps the used car dealers. And, it helps me.
Best of all, this idea comes as close to Obama's Socialist idea of redistribution of wealth as we could ever hope.
The only way we could realize Obama's dream of a level playing field is to take all the money away from all the people first, and then divide it evenly among every man, woman, and child in America, but that would be problematic at best. Impossible at worst.
This idea is much simpler.
And if Obama has proven anything, it is that he is simple.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Frustration
"There is a New America every morning when we wake up. It is upon us whether we will it or not." ~ Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any entries the last few days. The fact is, besides being distracted by economic problems here at home, which I can't seem to solve, I have been completely overwhelmed with the frightening amount of egregious acts and statements issuing from the Oval office. I suspect my personal economic problems and Obama's "change" are connected, but that connection as yet, remains to be proven.
There are simply too many things going on with Barack Hussein Obama, I can't focus on just one of them. Any one of his decisions have the potential for driving the United States of America over the cliff to our doom. And amazingly, he has accomplished this much in less than two weeks!
At this rate we will have a full blown Marxist dictatorship inside of two years.
I don't know what to comment on first.
I fear we are witnessing the final death throes of the United States of America.
Obama is intent on change, alright. He wants to change this country from the United States of America to the United Soviet States of America.
From his first day, every thing he has done is a disaster in the making. From signing the order to close GITMO, suspending trials for the terrorists, cutting our military budget by 10% (that's just the beginning of the dismantling of the military, mark my words), threatening to abolish free speech, to the capping of Wall Street executive's salaries.
What gives Obama the right to dictate (key word)how much executives can make? What gives him the right to limit how much any one can make? Today it's the Wall street executives. Tomorrow it may be you. That's Marxism at it's worst!
Can't the American people see what he's doing?
He has the power and he has the political backing of the other Marxists in the two houses of Congress, and if he stays in office long enough, and has the opportunity, he will pack the Supreme Court with Marxist judges.
He is taking us further into Socialism with every executive order, with every pronouncement, and with every concession he makes to the enemies of our country. And I include on that list enemies of America who call themselves Americans while actively trying to undermine America's security and freedoms.
What has to happen for Americans to rise up and throw this Marxist bum out on his ear? Does he have to declare himself "Dictator for Life" before the American people wake up and see what he's doing?
So. What can we do? We need to clean house, that much is certain. But, how do we do it?
I don't have anywhere enough of a readership to accomplish anything. I feel as if I'm talking to a wall. I have no power to lead a grassroots movement against this traitorous government.
But we need to act. Now. We need to let our voices be heard. Now. We need to throw these bums out, and the sooner, the better. Perhaps, if we move quickly enough, we can salvage what's left of our liberty.
Make no mistake. Obama is systematically destroying our country. And he's not even being subtle. He is blatantly dismantling the Constitution before our very eyes and we seem to be powerless to stop him.
We can write our Representatives in Congress. We can jam the Congressional switchboards with our calls. We can take to the streets and shout our frustration to the world. But the problem with that is this:
The media are in the tank for Obama, and our protests will not be heard. The Democrats in Congress are backing Obama, and will back him all the way to our death, and most of the Republican Representatives are spineless. They will sit back, watch, and complain.
Which is, by the way, the only thing we ordinary freedom loving Americans can do.
God help us all.
Monday, February 02, 2009
No Bail Out
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
U. S. Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, of Missouri believes she has the solution to Wall Street executives spending their share of the Federal bail-out money on Corporate jets, extravagant vacations, and million dollar bonuses.
That's right, she wants to cap their income at $400,000.00 a year, which just happens to be the same amount President Obama makes. In this way, she believes the Democrat controlled government can force these corporations to spend their free money responsibly.
How would that keep them from using the bail-out money irresponsibly? It seems to me that limiting their salaries would only encourage them to use their free money to pay themselves even bigger bonuses to make up the difference.
Who wouldn't take full advantage of free money? As I've mentioned before, would a starving man turn down a free sandwich?
The fact is, the more money they get, the more they will spend. If irresponsibility got them into their circumstances, handing them more money to spend foolishly won't get them out.
I once worked the customer service counter at a dry cleaner that was a fairly successful mom and pop operation. The cleaners did a bustling business until the owners wife got a taste of the good life. Whenever she wanted a new outfit, a new purse, new shoes, jewelry, or dinner at Ruth Criss', she simply opened the cash drawer and took out whatever amount she needed. Eventually, her extravagance drove her husband out of business.
Nobody bailed them out, nor should they have.
It is called fiscal irresponsibility, and it is this problem that Missouri's Senator means to address.
But, Ms. McCaskill is approaching the problem completely wrong. You don't give money to anyone who you know is going to waste it. That's just common sense.
In the free market system, businesses succeed and fail everyday. They succeed by making intelligent decisions and they fail by making stupid decisions.
Suppose I am behind on my house payment, utility payments, and car payment. If I receive a hefty Income tax refund, and go out and spend my refund on a big screen plasma TV instead of paying those bills, I deserve to lose my house.
Would anyone feel sorry for me? Would anyone feel obligated to send me money to help?
Also, how many of these corporations lobbied for bail out money when they didn't really need it in the first place? Something tells me if they really needed it, they wouldn't be wasting it on frivolous luxuries.
The free market system works best without outside help. It is a perfect model of the survival of the fittest. If a corporation employs sound business practices, re-invests their profits wisely, and keeps their operating costs to a minimum, they will succeed.
If they spend their profits like a drunken sailor on extravagances like corporate jets, vacations, etc, with no regard to the possible consequences, they will fail, as well they should.
If they fail because they spent their profits foolishly, they deserve to fail. They certainly don't deserve help from a government that is already suffering economic woes of it's own. Especially when much of the blame goes to the Government for contributing to such bad financial decisions.
Rest assured, if a corporation fails there will be plenty of other companies perfectly willing to step in and take up the slack. Don't let Claire McCaskill or anyone else tell you that won't happen.
No, the free market system can take care of itself. They don't need free money. The smart executives will find a way to overcome temporary financial setbacks and the foolish corporations will go bankrupt, and that's how the free market works.
Our Government needs to use our money to pay Government debts and let the corporations use their gross income to pay theirs.
That's how it was designed, and that's the best way.
The American way.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Comedy On NPR
"I never cease being dumbfounded by the unbelievable things people believe." ~ Leo Rosten
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
As most of you know, I listen to National Public Radio (NPR) on weekends, when I'm in my car. There is no programming worth listening to on weekends on the Conservative talk radio stations in this area (Unless you think shows about mulch are entertaining), so I listen to NPR, a decidedly non-Conservative radio network, which is partly subsidized by our tax dollars.
Their Liberal bias is even more obvious than MSNBC, if that is possible.
I wonder, how many billions of dollars in the new Porkulus package are earmarked for public radio and television?
But I digress.
There are, believe it or not, some programs on NPR worth listening to, particularly on weekends. There is "Car Talk", "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "A Prairie Home Companion". I enjoy the comedy, when it is not specifically directed at Conservatives and Republicans.
Well, sometimes even then.
There are always nuggets of comedy to be found on all of the aforementioned shows.
But this week, the best comedy line wasn't on any of those shows. It was, instead, on a "serious" show called "This American Life".
The host of the program announced a new editorial policy, which was encapsulated in one line, to wit:
"Don't try to force Obama to stop smoking."
But, hold on there!
That isn't the line to which I referred. The line I am referencing as the funniest line of the day came next:
"Smoking is Obama's ONLY flaw."
Who knew NPR was so funny?
Perhaps our tax dollars aren't being wasted by subsidizing Public Radio after all.
Friday, January 30, 2009
When One Door Closes, Another Opens
"Competence, like truth, beauty and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder." ~ Laurence J. Peter
Just a couple of short (hopefully) comments today. First, does anyone remember when this happened?
Bush was at a conference in China, and, upon conclusion of a news conference, attempted to leave through what proved to be a locked door. Undaunted, he made a humorous comment about it, and moved along.
But the Liberally biased media didn't move along, did they? For weeks afterward, Liberal reporters and blogs guffawed at the image of a President who was so stupid he wasn't even able to Divine the door was locked before he tried it.
I mean, after all, no Liberal has ever made the obviously stupid mistake of trying to open a locked door, have they?
Now, has anyone seen this article from the New York Daily News?
Just a couple of short (hopefully) comments today. First, does anyone remember when this happened?
Bush was at a conference in China, and, upon conclusion of a news conference, attempted to leave through what proved to be a locked door. Undaunted, he made a humorous comment about it, and moved along.But the Liberally biased media didn't move along, did they? For weeks afterward, Liberal reporters and blogs guffawed at the image of a President who was so stupid he wasn't even able to Divine the door was locked before he tried it.
I mean, after all, no Liberal has ever made the obviously stupid mistake of trying to open a locked door, have they?
Now, has anyone seen this article from the New York Daily News?
It seems, "On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right."
The article goes on to state, "Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support."
Yeah, that's right. Bush is stupid because he didn't know a door was locked. But Barack Hussein Obama was simply distracted and confused by those big 'ol mean Republicans and, while trying to get away from their merciless, unwarranted attacks, tried to exit through a window, mistakenly confusing it for a door.
Well, at least Bush knew it was a door, eh?
Whoever said in my comments recently that Bush and the Republicans will be blamed for any failures of the Obama administration must have been correct. Or so it seems.
In other news, Illinois Democrat Governor Rod "Show me the F***ing money" Blagojevich has been removed from office after a State Senate unanimous verdict of guilty in his impeachment trial.
In addition, he will no longer be allowed to hold any public office anywhere within the state of Illinois.
There's still hope for 'ol Roddy, though.
Perhaps President Barack Hussein Obama will appoint his Chicago buddy to the new position of Secretary of Ethics in his administration.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." ~ Christina Baldwin
I've updated my blogroll recently. I've deleted some and added others. The reasons I've made these updates vary almost as much as the different styles of the sites listed.
Since blogger started the "followers" feature (at the left, on the sidebar), some bloggers have added themselves as followers of my blog. I was flattered that they count themselves among my regular readers, but I've found some who say they follow, don't. At least, there is no indication they do. This is perplexing to me, to say the least. Why click on "follow this blog" if you have no intention of ever returning?
In the beginning, I added everyone who became a follower to my blogroll (except those followers who were already on it), and made a conscientious effort to read their blogs as regularly as I could, which is difficult, as I have a life outside the blogospere, and not as much time as I need to visit every one's blogs on a daily basis.
Which, incidentally, is another reason I deleted some of them. Too many to read regularly.
The first casualty was a blogger who clicked the "follower" button one time, and when I went to his blog, and informed him that I saw he became a follower of my blog, he in turn informed me he only did it so he could return later if he needed for a reference for one of his future post. In other words, he had no intention of actually following. I was just a possible "idea creator" for him, I assume, in case he ran out of ideas of his own.
And, he has never commented on my blog, either.
Anyway, after waiting for some sign that he actually reads my entries, and finding none, I deleted him from my blogroll. He is, however, still listed as a follower. So what? It looks good.
Then, there are a couple, still listed as followers, that seem to have no reason at all for following. One site consists of nothing but bad insults. Weird.
Another has a blogsite entitled, "Impeach Obama", a sentiment I can get behind, but the subject matter leaves little room for variety. He has a total of two posts since November, and neither of them is very insightful nor interesting. Consequently, he is not on my blogroll.
One blogger stopped visiting after we had a disagreement concerning the Republican primaries. Many of my regular readers may remember when I chastised the self named "Reagan Conservatives" for supporting very un-Reagan like near-Liberal candidates for President such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, etc. I blamed them, along with the majority of Republicans, for handing the selection of candidate for President to Liberal John McCain by default, instead of my choice, true Conservative Duncan Hunter.
Apparently, my criticism insulted her. She said, and I quote, "OK, Mark. I'm done with you." I lost her at that time as a visitor, though I continued visiting her blog for several weeks afterwards. And still do, on occasion.
Besides that, her blog often goes off into what I feel are un-interesting diversions such as who won "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars", and other similar yawners. I care absolutely nothing for these television shows, but that is my burden to bear, and I don't blame her choice of subjects for deleting her blog. I blame the fact that she abandoned me because she couldn't stand a little constructive criticism.
I said the same about Mike's America at the time, also, but as far as I know, he didn't hold it against me. Hence, he is still on my blogroll.
Another one lost his place in my blogroll after calling me a whiner, simply because I was being honestly humble about my parenting ability. I don't think any father is perfectly satisfied with the way he parents at all times. I was just honest enough to admit that I make mistakes. And, I wasn't whining, nor do I ever.
For the record, the particular blogger referred to is not even a husband, much less a father. He isn't a very good writer either. He uses way too many mixed metaphors for my taste and his punctuation and sentence structure is maddening. Not that mine is much better, but at least I understand what I write.
Others are simply blogs I don't get to very often and bloggers who rarely post anything. A couple were deleted because after I left comments at their places several times, I never received any response at all. I can only assume they don't appreciate my patronage. So, they are deleted now.
I need to delete some others, too, but I have a soft spot for the rest of them. They are old buddies. Can't seem to bring myself to dispatch them to the recycle bin.
As for additions, I am quite happy with the new blogger buddies I have accumulated. I have added everyone on my followers list except the aforementioned "Daily Insult", "Impeach Obama", and one blog that doesn't fit into the type of blogs I regularly read. I have no animosity for the lady who calls herself "Haft's Happenings", but it's more of a personal web blog, and I prefer blogs that deal with current events and politics. No offense intended, Haft.
There's Pamela D Hart, a refreshingly insightful blogger, and Miss T C Shore, a remarkably intelligent young lady who renews my faith in the younger generation. Kris, Krystal, and Kirsten all have interesting blogs.
Then, there's a few I'd known about from other blog comment sections but only recently began reading their blogs. These include DD2(Debonair Dude), and Always on Watch. Rounding out the rest are Conservative and Elephant Man, two who mysteriously became followers who I checked out and since, have thoroughly enjoyed reading.
Finally, the most recent blogroll addition is not really a blog, but a website that can best be described as the Conservative alternative to the Liberal humor site, "The Onion", a really funny satire site called "The Endive" . This one came to me in a different fashion. The administrator of the site sent me an unsolicited e-mail inviting me to check his site out and let him know if I like it or not.
I like it. Check it out.
I've updated my blogroll recently. I've deleted some and added others. The reasons I've made these updates vary almost as much as the different styles of the sites listed.
Since blogger started the "followers" feature (at the left, on the sidebar), some bloggers have added themselves as followers of my blog. I was flattered that they count themselves among my regular readers, but I've found some who say they follow, don't. At least, there is no indication they do. This is perplexing to me, to say the least. Why click on "follow this blog" if you have no intention of ever returning?
In the beginning, I added everyone who became a follower to my blogroll (except those followers who were already on it), and made a conscientious effort to read their blogs as regularly as I could, which is difficult, as I have a life outside the blogospere, and not as much time as I need to visit every one's blogs on a daily basis.
Which, incidentally, is another reason I deleted some of them. Too many to read regularly.
The first casualty was a blogger who clicked the "follower" button one time, and when I went to his blog, and informed him that I saw he became a follower of my blog, he in turn informed me he only did it so he could return later if he needed for a reference for one of his future post. In other words, he had no intention of actually following. I was just a possible "idea creator" for him, I assume, in case he ran out of ideas of his own.
And, he has never commented on my blog, either.
Anyway, after waiting for some sign that he actually reads my entries, and finding none, I deleted him from my blogroll. He is, however, still listed as a follower. So what? It looks good.
Then, there are a couple, still listed as followers, that seem to have no reason at all for following. One site consists of nothing but bad insults. Weird.
Another has a blogsite entitled, "Impeach Obama", a sentiment I can get behind, but the subject matter leaves little room for variety. He has a total of two posts since November, and neither of them is very insightful nor interesting. Consequently, he is not on my blogroll.
One blogger stopped visiting after we had a disagreement concerning the Republican primaries. Many of my regular readers may remember when I chastised the self named "Reagan Conservatives" for supporting very un-Reagan like near-Liberal candidates for President such as Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, etc. I blamed them, along with the majority of Republicans, for handing the selection of candidate for President to Liberal John McCain by default, instead of my choice, true Conservative Duncan Hunter.
Apparently, my criticism insulted her. She said, and I quote, "OK, Mark. I'm done with you." I lost her at that time as a visitor, though I continued visiting her blog for several weeks afterwards. And still do, on occasion.
Besides that, her blog often goes off into what I feel are un-interesting diversions such as who won "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars", and other similar yawners. I care absolutely nothing for these television shows, but that is my burden to bear, and I don't blame her choice of subjects for deleting her blog. I blame the fact that she abandoned me because she couldn't stand a little constructive criticism.
I said the same about Mike's America at the time, also, but as far as I know, he didn't hold it against me. Hence, he is still on my blogroll.
Another one lost his place in my blogroll after calling me a whiner, simply because I was being honestly humble about my parenting ability. I don't think any father is perfectly satisfied with the way he parents at all times. I was just honest enough to admit that I make mistakes. And, I wasn't whining, nor do I ever.
For the record, the particular blogger referred to is not even a husband, much less a father. He isn't a very good writer either. He uses way too many mixed metaphors for my taste and his punctuation and sentence structure is maddening. Not that mine is much better, but at least I understand what I write.
Others are simply blogs I don't get to very often and bloggers who rarely post anything. A couple were deleted because after I left comments at their places several times, I never received any response at all. I can only assume they don't appreciate my patronage. So, they are deleted now.
I need to delete some others, too, but I have a soft spot for the rest of them. They are old buddies. Can't seem to bring myself to dispatch them to the recycle bin.
As for additions, I am quite happy with the new blogger buddies I have accumulated. I have added everyone on my followers list except the aforementioned "Daily Insult", "Impeach Obama", and one blog that doesn't fit into the type of blogs I regularly read. I have no animosity for the lady who calls herself "Haft's Happenings", but it's more of a personal web blog, and I prefer blogs that deal with current events and politics. No offense intended, Haft.
There's Pamela D Hart, a refreshingly insightful blogger, and Miss T C Shore, a remarkably intelligent young lady who renews my faith in the younger generation. Kris, Krystal, and Kirsten all have interesting blogs.
Then, there's a few I'd known about from other blog comment sections but only recently began reading their blogs. These include DD2(Debonair Dude), and Always on Watch. Rounding out the rest are Conservative and Elephant Man, two who mysteriously became followers who I checked out and since, have thoroughly enjoyed reading.
Finally, the most recent blogroll addition is not really a blog, but a website that can best be described as the Conservative alternative to the Liberal humor site, "The Onion", a really funny satire site called "The Endive" . This one came to me in a different fashion. The administrator of the site sent me an unsolicited e-mail inviting me to check his site out and let him know if I like it or not.
I like it. Check it out.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
On Obama's Agenda: The Destruction Of The Traditional Family
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." ~ William H. Borah
The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:
The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."
The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".
This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:
I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.
Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?
Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.
Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.
But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.
I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.
Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.
Like hate crimes legislation.
Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.
I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.
The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:
Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."
Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."
And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."
This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.
They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.
But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.
Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.
The following discourse is another comment I began to leave at our team blog, which was a short comment that linked to a Town Hall piece by Alan Sears, founder and CEO of The Alliance Defense Fund, but it became so long, I decided it would make a good subject for a post on it's own:
The subject of the aforementioned article by Mr Sears is an analysis of parts of President Barack Hussein Obama's agenda according to his official web site. Mr. Sears' position is that Obama's agenda is "a virtual declaration of war against those who oppose the demands for special rights and privileges by those who engage in homosexual behavior."
The first commentary was on Obama's agenda of "Expanding the definition of, and ramping up the penalties for, 'hate' crimes".
This is my opinion about hate crimes legislation:
I am a little confused about hate crimes legislation, and have been ever since hate crime legislation was first introduced. As I understand it, it was introduced to combat violent crimes committed by person A against person B because person A hates Person B.
Already this requires a judgment call. Who can say what anyone thinks about anyone else during the commission of a felony? Who can read minds?
Very few violent crimes are committed because the perpetrator loves the victim, if any.
Now, if person A admits that he committed a violent crime against person B because he hates person B, there is indeed just cause to prosecute, however, original hate crimes legislation was introduced to protect those victims who are considered minorities, and in particular, homosexuals.
But even in that scenario, isn't the fact that a violent crime was committed enough of a reason to prosecute? Why is labeling any violent crime a hate crime even needed?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was already a crime to assault, batter, and/or murder someone else, and whatever reason, except in cut-and-dried instances of self defense, motive isn't even required in the determination of guilt or innocence. It often helps to know why, but it is not necessary.
I've mentioned before that hate crimes legislation is an perfect example of what I call "government overkill". Which means the government spent a lot of time, energy, and tax payer money to pass a law that was essentially already on the books.
Government overkill happens when some one sues some government entity over some perceived negligence, justified or not. That's when government goes into full blown CYA mode, and over-reacts by proposing some legislation that creates some new law that is neither useful nor necessary.
Like hate crimes legislation.
Where the state used to prosecute the crime of murder, they now have to spend additional time and money to determine if said murder is a hate crime or simply a run of the mill murder.
I say, what's the difference? The victim is still just as dead, and the perpetrator is still just as guilty.
The second part of the article quotes the Obama website as follows:
Expanding “anti-discrimination” employment laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
I agree with the author that this is simply an attempt to place the decision of who to hire into the hands of the government. According to Mr Sears: "...[T]his is about forcing religious groups (including churches) and private organizations (like the Boy Scouts and businesses) to hire those whose open announcement of sexual behavior runs counter to the beliefs of the organizations. And when those organizations point to those beliefs...well, see 'Hate Crimes' above."
Let me add here, this is an egregious violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the establishment clause of the first amendment.
Third, and fourth, Obama declares, "Opposing a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage,” while promoting the legalization of these and other same-sex relationships – granting them the same federal legal rights and privileges as other married couples."
And, "Securing full adoption rights for same-sex couples."
This third point is where Mr. Sears and I part company. While I agree that allowing same sex couples to marry is disgusting and sickening, I really don't have a problem with it if they choose to do so. Whatever floats their boat. As long as they don't try to shove their immorality down my and my children and grand children's throats, they can marry each other as many times as they want.
They are welcome to the same feeling of hopelessness and entrapment that married couples have had to deal with since time began. And, since homosexuality is depravity, they no doubt deserve it more.
But I draw the line at allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
In my opinion, allowing homosexual couples to adopt children is child abuse. Let them play house if they want to. More power to them. But leave innocent impressionable children out of the picture.
Give them a chance to grow up mentally healthy without all that additional unnecessary trauma.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Fix The Environment, Bankrupt The People
"Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status." ~ Laurence J. Peter
Not too long ago, I posted a blog entry about my new found expertise in mechanical repair. In the piece, I casually mentioned the problems caused by all these new-fangled emission control devices auto makers are forced to put into new cars now.
There is the EGR valve, which, if it goes bad, costs somewhere around thirty-five dollars to replace, and that is if you do the job yourself. Then there is the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF), which costs well over $150.00. That's the price of only the part. If you hire someone to do it for you that price goes up. And up. And up.
Then, there's the PCV valve. And the catalytic converter. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm fairly sure these two items were among the first pollution control additions that the Federal government foisted upon automakers.
And there's more. Much, much more.
These "improvements", in turn, have spawned a host of additional expensive and unnecessary additions that have done little besides drive the cost of automobiles far past the point of affordability, at least for Obama's beloved middle and lower classes.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama is removing the restrictions on states to impose further "green house gas" reducing devices on automobile manufacturers and mechanics.
This, in the name of protecting the environment. Who's going to protect my bank book?
In the meantime, someone has to cover the additional expenses to comply with further Government meddling with the private sector.
Who do you think will benefit the most from these new regulatory changes? Hmmmm?
Well, it certainly won't be the middle classes.
Last night, a guest commentator on some TV news program said he knows of a trucking contractor who complained that implementing these new changes would cost him $20,000 just to be in compliance, putting him effectively out of business.
This legislation proposal would allow California and 17 other states to set stricter limits on auto emissions, according to this article, "That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020."
"The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.
To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000".
Get that? That's FIVE TH-TH-TH-THOUSAND dollars MORE than it already costs them to manufacture a car!
Anyone here want to pay $5,000 more dollars for your next new car?
That's the minimum.
Rest assured the automakers will add to that amount to realize that much more profit. I have often stated I could never be mistaken for an economist, but you don't have to be head mechanic at Jiffy Lube to understand that is a s**tload of money.
I have heard, though I'm not sure, that most companies of any kind make a profit on their goods and services an average of 2.5% over costs. What is 2.5% of $5,000? Does anyone here wish to pay that much more for their next new car? $5,000 PLUS Profit?
Aren't automoble prices already over the top? Have you ever wondered how much less expensive new cars would be if there were no emission and/or pollution control devices installed in them at all?
And there is, again, as I mentioned previously, the additional costs of repairs to these devices.
Is this how Obama is going to fix the economy?
Could someone please explain for me how raising and spending more tax dollars and driving up the costs of goods and services precipitously will solve the country's economical problems?
I'm now fifty-seven years old, and I have never seen a time when spending my money to repair my cars ever made me rich.
Not too long ago, I posted a blog entry about my new found expertise in mechanical repair. In the piece, I casually mentioned the problems caused by all these new-fangled emission control devices auto makers are forced to put into new cars now.
There is the EGR valve, which, if it goes bad, costs somewhere around thirty-five dollars to replace, and that is if you do the job yourself. Then there is the Mass Air Flow Sensor (MAF), which costs well over $150.00. That's the price of only the part. If you hire someone to do it for you that price goes up. And up. And up.
Then, there's the PCV valve. And the catalytic converter. I'm not a mechanic, but I'm fairly sure these two items were among the first pollution control additions that the Federal government foisted upon automakers.
And there's more. Much, much more.
These "improvements", in turn, have spawned a host of additional expensive and unnecessary additions that have done little besides drive the cost of automobiles far past the point of affordability, at least for Obama's beloved middle and lower classes.
Now, Barack Hussein Obama is removing the restrictions on states to impose further "green house gas" reducing devices on automobile manufacturers and mechanics.
This, in the name of protecting the environment. Who's going to protect my bank book?
In the meantime, someone has to cover the additional expenses to comply with further Government meddling with the private sector.
Who do you think will benefit the most from these new regulatory changes? Hmmmm?
Well, it certainly won't be the middle classes.
Last night, a guest commentator on some TV news program said he knows of a trucking contractor who complained that implementing these new changes would cost him $20,000 just to be in compliance, putting him effectively out of business.
This legislation proposal would allow California and 17 other states to set stricter limits on auto emissions, according to this article, "That has provoked considerable anxiety in the auto industry. Carmakers fear that they will be forced to spend billions of dollars to comply with the California emissions rules, which are distinct from -- and more rigorous than -- federal fuel standards passed in 2007. The federal standards would raise the national fleet average to 35 miles a gallon by 2020."
"The California rules don't strictly limit mileage. But by setting caps on carbon emissions, they would effectively require vehicles to reach as much as 42 m.p.g. by 2020, according to some estimates. Currently, only two mass-produced vehicles, the Toyota Prius and the hybrid Honda Civic, average at least 42 m.p.g.
To reach that level on a fleetwide basis, automakers would likely have to invest in costly new technologies such as hybrid drive trains. Industry estimates put the per-vehicle cost of compliance as high as $5,000".
Get that? That's FIVE TH-TH-TH-THOUSAND dollars MORE than it already costs them to manufacture a car!
Anyone here want to pay $5,000 more dollars for your next new car?
That's the minimum.
Rest assured the automakers will add to that amount to realize that much more profit. I have often stated I could never be mistaken for an economist, but you don't have to be head mechanic at Jiffy Lube to understand that is a s**tload of money.
I have heard, though I'm not sure, that most companies of any kind make a profit on their goods and services an average of 2.5% over costs. What is 2.5% of $5,000? Does anyone here wish to pay that much more for their next new car? $5,000 PLUS Profit?
Aren't automoble prices already over the top? Have you ever wondered how much less expensive new cars would be if there were no emission and/or pollution control devices installed in them at all?
And there is, again, as I mentioned previously, the additional costs of repairs to these devices.
Is this how Obama is going to fix the economy?
Could someone please explain for me how raising and spending more tax dollars and driving up the costs of goods and services precipitously will solve the country's economical problems?
I'm now fifty-seven years old, and I have never seen a time when spending my money to repair my cars ever made me rich.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The First Amendment: Obama's Next Victim?
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," ~ Barack Hussein Obama
*Cross Posted at American Descent*
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Part 2:
On a lighter side:
Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.
I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.
I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.
So far, not one penny.
And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.
After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.
So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.
I never saw it published.
But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.
To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.
The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians
In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."
Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."
He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.
The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."
Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.
Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.
*Cross Posted at American Descent*
Hey, Folks! Remember when President George W. Bush told America to stop listening to Keith Olbermann? Remember when Bush told you to pay no attention to Chris Matthews? Remember when he told us that we couldn't get anything done if we spend too much time listening to Al Franken?
I'll wait while you search your data base.
Conservative talk radio is all a-twitter over President Barack Hussein Obama's suggestion that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
At first, I didn't understand all the commotion. He only made an off-hand remark, right? He didn't mean it to be taken seriously, right?
But then I thought, "Well, why shouldn't they be upset?" After all, Conservative talk radio's livelihood consists of alerting their listeners to the outrageous words and actions of the Liberals. Conservative talk radio hosts take it very personal when some Liberal merely suggests censoring them.
But this latest outrage goes beyond something a mere Liberal says.
This is the newly elected President of the United States of America!
This is the guy that only last Tuesday took an oath to "protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution of the United States".
Suddenly he wishes to revoke a first amendment right. Only four days into his administration he has already broken his oath of office.
Focus on the word, "defend" here.
Telling us to not listen to Rush Limbaugh isn't defending free speech. It is using the power of his office to attempt to intimidate Rush Limbaugh into shutting up.
Well, I guess we all know Rush isn't going to shut up, and in fact, he will only shout louder.
This thing has the possibility of snowballing into an all out assault on every Americans right to free speech. If Rush doesn't shut up, as Mr. Obama suggests, what might the President do?
Will he dare to ask Congress to take legislative action against dissent?
Sounds implausible, I know, but look what he's done already:
Signed executive orders to close GITMO, suspend trials of the detainees, spend our tax money to fund abortions in other countries over the objections of we who find the practice exceedingly abhorrent.
The man has sent a message of hope to terrorists and abortion providers (terrorists in their own right, I might add). In his first four days!
He has four more years to work on revoking all of our liberties and putting his Marxist agenda into place.
I'd say he has made a significant start.
Part 2:
On a lighter side:
Ever since the economy tanked, and consequently my income has dropped to about 1/5 of what I was making previously, I have been seeking other sources of income.
I was told long ago, (back when the earth was cooling) by many people who I respect, that I should try to obtain an occupation doing something at which I'm good.
I'm not really good at much. I often say "I know something about everything, but I don't know everything about anything". But I believe I am good at writing. So, with that in mind, I've been submitting articles to the local newspaper in hopes that they will not only publish my opinion pieces, but actually pay me for them.
So far, not one penny.
And what's really been aggravating, they haven't even published anything of mine in their "letters to the editor" section. I consider that personally insulting, since some of the letters they publish appear to have been written by idiots.
After submitting several (to my mind) exceptionally Pulitzer prize deserving articles without results, I got frustrated and just stopped sending articles. I also stopped checking the opinion pages to see if, by chance, they might have actually published something of mine.
So, Imagine my surprise when my wife alerted me to a letter written to the editor responding to an article I wrote! I know it was one of mine because the writer mentioned me specifically by name. First and last.
I never saw it published.
But, since the newspaper indicated which issue it appeared in, I was able to search the archives and find my article online on the Fredericksburg website.
To my disappointment, not only did they edit some of my best lines out of it, they also published it under "letters to the editor", hence, I will receive no compensation for my efforts. None except pride that I actually was published.
The letter that referenced me began, "Stores are paying the price for assault on Christmas, Christians
In his Jan. 11 letter titled "Happy 'holy day'! Not so secular, after all," Mark ****** states that he is more saddened than angry that some businesses have been intimidated into disallowing their employees from saying "Merry Christmas."
Mr. ****** goes on to say that the omission of the phrase "Happy Holiday" during other holidays appears to bolster the point that there is a specific assault on Christians through an assault on Christmas..."
He went on to equate the loss of revenue this Christmas season to stores not saying "Merry Christmas", a stretch of logic to say the least, but at least he seems to agree with my premise.
The entire article I submitted can be found in my blog archives. I wrote it on this blog first, and then, after editing parts out that pertain only to my blog readers, I divided the entire post up into two separate articles and sent them both to the paper. They in turn, edited it down further, leaving out what I consider the best line in the piece, which read, "So, I guess the joke's on them."
Although annoyed that they consigned this excellent opinion piece to the humdrum "letters to the editor" section, I am nonetheless revitalized to resume my efforts in earnest.
Wish me luck, and if motivated to do so, offer me constructive advice and/or suggestions of some publications that publish unsolicited articles for syndication.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Freedom of Choice Act Offers Neither.
"The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." ~ Barack Hussein Obama
In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".
You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:
"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".
If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?
Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.
Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.
All of them.
That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.
The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.
There are no exceptions.
Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.
Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.
Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.
Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.
Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.
Why not? You might well ask.
What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?
Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?
What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?
Is that Freedom of choice?
Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?
And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?
As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".
There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.
It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.
In the comments of my last post, Father Gregori wrote, "Mark, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Obama signed the Freedom of Choice Act into law today (sometime this morning)".
You are wrong, Father, but you aren't far off. He hasn't signed it yet, because it hasn't been passed yet. According to the Library of Congress web site, The last major action is this:
"1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary".
If Democrats succeed (and they may already have, I'm not sure) in achieving a filibuster-proof Senate, that means it's only a matter of time before the FOCA becomes Federal law, and it will be signed by President Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
But what does the passage of this law mean? How will it effect Americans?
Opponents of the law say it will, among other things, force health care providers to perform abortions even if they are opposed to abortion for moral and ethical reasons. While there is no direct reference to this in the bill, it does indirectly appear to make that particular provision.
Basically what the bill does, is remove all restrictions to all abortions in the United States of America.
All of them.
That would appear to give credence to the opponent's argument.
The bill prohibits any local, state. or federal government from restricting any woman from getting an abortion.
There are no exceptions.
Therefore, it is implied, but not specifically stated, underage girls can obtain an abortion without the knowledge or approval of their parents. After all, if, as the bill states emphatically, any woman anywhere, at any time, can obtain an abortion if she so desires, she can get one without her parents approval and knowledge with the blessings of the federal Government.
Women can cross state lines to get an abortion under this law, although, if all states and all localities have to provide abortions, there would be, of course, no reason to cross state lines.
Will Catholic hospitals and other health care providers who have moral and ethical objections to abortions be forced to abandon their principles to comply with this new law? Well, that question is not specifically addressed in this legislation, but, again, if any woman, anywhere, at any time, and for any reason will be legally allowed to abort her baby, it would appear that any and all health care providers will be federally mandated to provide the facilities and staff necessary.
Regardless of religious convictions and ethical concerns.
Does this sound like freedom or liberty to you? It doesn't to me.
Why not? You might well ask.
What of a parents right to raise her child as she sees fit? Doesn't a parent have the right to admonish and correct the child if such parent believes the child is preparing to do something that is, to the parent, morally reprehensible?
Has the federal government become the parent? What of the parents rights? Are they gone?
What of the health care providers? Never mind any moral or ethical objections. What if they simply don't want to perform abortions whatever the reason?
Is that Freedom of choice?
Don't Health care providers and Parents have the freedom to choose how they want to govern their lives?
And then there's the babies. Babies have no choice either way. They neither choose to be born or choose to live. If you were an unborn baby, how would you choose? Life or death?
As Trader Rick observed, The Freedom of Choice Act is a "mis-named piece of filth".
There is neither freedom or choice in this legislation.
It is contrary to the very freedoms upon which this country was founded.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama's First Presidential Mistake
"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." ~ Charles De Gaulle
One day in office and Obama has already broken one campaign promise. Remember? He promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President would be to work towards passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act, a particularly horrific piece of legislation that would make it legal for underage minor girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents. It would also force Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to provide abortions against their religious principles. And many more equally egregious provisions.
Anyway, Obama hasn't whispered a word about FOCA so far. Hence, he has broken one promise already. How many more promises has he broken and how many more broken promises will be forthcoming?
But, I will not focus on his broken campaign promises. Everyone knows candidates make many promises they can't keep while running for office. I only mention it here because it further illuminates the fact that Obama is a mere man, not a God, as his followers appear to believe.
What Obama has actually done is much more egregious, and, potentially dangerous for every American citizen, including Liberals.
He signed an executive order which suspends all trials of "alleged" terrorists currently being held at GITMO in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This suspension is supposed to last a period of 120 days, I believe, during which the process of trying the detainees will be reviewed as to whether they are legal or not.
Regardless of the conclusion of the reviewing panel, Obama has sent a message to every terrorist organization in the world. That message is:
America is weak.
America, under her new President Barack Hussein Obama, will hesitate before retaliating for any future attacks. America will become again, the "Paper Tiger" that Osama bin Laden said we were.
Obama's executive order, which on the surface, appears gracious, fair, and benign, will embolden our enemies, and invite more attacks on America.
What's next?
Suspension of the Patriot act?
Perhaps he should just order an air strike on America. The result would be the same.
One day in office and Obama has already broken one campaign promise. Remember? He promised Planned Parenthood the first thing he would do as President would be to work towards passage of the Freedom Of Choice Act, a particularly horrific piece of legislation that would make it legal for underage minor girls to obtain abortions without the knowledge or permission of their parents. It would also force Catholic hospitals and other religious hospitals to provide abortions against their religious principles. And many more equally egregious provisions.
Anyway, Obama hasn't whispered a word about FOCA so far. Hence, he has broken one promise already. How many more promises has he broken and how many more broken promises will be forthcoming?
But, I will not focus on his broken campaign promises. Everyone knows candidates make many promises they can't keep while running for office. I only mention it here because it further illuminates the fact that Obama is a mere man, not a God, as his followers appear to believe.
What Obama has actually done is much more egregious, and, potentially dangerous for every American citizen, including Liberals.
He signed an executive order which suspends all trials of "alleged" terrorists currently being held at GITMO in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This suspension is supposed to last a period of 120 days, I believe, during which the process of trying the detainees will be reviewed as to whether they are legal or not.
Regardless of the conclusion of the reviewing panel, Obama has sent a message to every terrorist organization in the world. That message is:
America is weak.
America, under her new President Barack Hussein Obama, will hesitate before retaliating for any future attacks. America will become again, the "Paper Tiger" that Osama bin Laden said we were.
Obama's executive order, which on the surface, appears gracious, fair, and benign, will embolden our enemies, and invite more attacks on America.
What's next?
Suspension of the Patriot act?
Perhaps he should just order an air strike on America. The result would be the same.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Real Racism In America
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
Now that the party is over, and the adulation of the Almighty Obama has abated somewhat, and little remains but the shouting, one thing has become painfully clear:
Racism is alive and thriving in the United States of America.
I listened to NPR radio over the weekend. I listened to news report after news report, all NPR commentators absolutely giddy over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President.
Well, not exactly.
They were actually expressing a euphoric excitement over the fact that a black man had been elected President. Judging by the level of the fervor, and the sheer number of times his race was mentioned, it wouldn't matter to them if a drug crazed mass murdering gang leader had been elected, as long as he was a black drug crazed mass murdering gang leader.
Dr. Martin Luther King, black civil rights leader (and Republican), once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
On the surface, it would appear that this nation has now achieved Dr. Kings goal with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is at least half black.
But, look deeper. That doesn't appear to be the case, after all.
Obama has, throughout his lifetime, surrounded himself with, befriended, and associated with men and women of deplorable character. Men like William Ayres, an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist.
"Reverend" (and I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semitic, America hating, racist, so-called pastor.
Tony Rezko, a convicted corrupt real estate swindler and slum lord.
Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist party, who Obama reveres as one of his primary mentors.
Radically Liberal Catholic minister Father Michael Phleger, another America hating cleric.
Many, many other people of at least questionable character, several of whom are now part of Obama's cabinet.
Obama's own wife, Michelle, who stated on at least two occasions publicly, and who knows how many times privately, that she wasn't proud of America until her husband was considered worthy of a Presidential run. She also said America is a downright mean country.
Now she's America's first lady.
For shame, for shame.
A man is judged by the company he keeps. Obama keeps bad company.
But, if that isn't enough, what about Obama's own character?
After those same associations with men and women of questionable and unquestionably bad character became a political liability, he discarded them like a used condom. A man with character stands by his friends regardless. Especially if he believes they have been misjudged and/or impugned, as Obama has repeatedly stated.
How did Obama react to the criticism of his associates again?
Four times he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIP) as a State Senator in Illinois. That, in a nutshell, means he voted to allow newborn babies to die alone and untended. Four times!
He supports infanticide. I doubt Dr. King would have advocated that. A man of character doesn't kill babies.
Then there's the issue of Obama's courting and accepting campaign contributions from foreign contributors. Accepting contributions from foreigners (as in, not American citizens) is bad enough (and illegal), but many came from nations that actively support terrorism. Terrorism against America and her allies. A man of character would reject those contributions.
He trained workers for ACORN, an organization that not only practices voter fraud, they perfect it. A man of good character would distance himself from an organization like that, but not Obama. He embraced them.
Obama has advocated Marxist principles and suggested that America's Constitution is outdated. He has equated our Constitution with Nazi principles. An American President that espouses Marxist and anti-American philosophies is a President without character.
I am going to leave out the various subversive organizations and people that he represented as an attorney at law. Legal representation of scum is not automatically evidence of bad character.
But it has been, and can be argued that accepting those kinds of cases on a regular basis constitutes such evidence. And he has accepted many.
Now we come around again to my stated point:
Racism in America.
Barack Hussein Obama was not elected because of the content of his character. He was elected because he is black.
That is racism.
Many people would call that reverse racism, but that term would suggest whites are the only race capable of discriminating against other races. That is not true.
Racism is racism. The Merriam-Webster 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.
See? Blacks are as capable of racism as whites.
I'll repeat. Obama wasn't elected because he had good character. He was elected because of the color of his skin.
I don't think that was what Dr. King had in mind.
Now that the party is over, and the adulation of the Almighty Obama has abated somewhat, and little remains but the shouting, one thing has become painfully clear:
Racism is alive and thriving in the United States of America.
I listened to NPR radio over the weekend. I listened to news report after news report, all NPR commentators absolutely giddy over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President.
Well, not exactly.
They were actually expressing a euphoric excitement over the fact that a black man had been elected President. Judging by the level of the fervor, and the sheer number of times his race was mentioned, it wouldn't matter to them if a drug crazed mass murdering gang leader had been elected, as long as he was a black drug crazed mass murdering gang leader.
Dr. Martin Luther King, black civil rights leader (and Republican), once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
On the surface, it would appear that this nation has now achieved Dr. Kings goal with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a man who is at least half black.
But, look deeper. That doesn't appear to be the case, after all.
Obama has, throughout his lifetime, surrounded himself with, befriended, and associated with men and women of deplorable character. Men like William Ayres, an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist.
"Reverend" (and I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright, an anti-Semitic, America hating, racist, so-called pastor.
Tony Rezko, a convicted corrupt real estate swindler and slum lord.
Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist party, who Obama reveres as one of his primary mentors.
Radically Liberal Catholic minister Father Michael Phleger, another America hating cleric.
Many, many other people of at least questionable character, several of whom are now part of Obama's cabinet.
Obama's own wife, Michelle, who stated on at least two occasions publicly, and who knows how many times privately, that she wasn't proud of America until her husband was considered worthy of a Presidential run. She also said America is a downright mean country.
Now she's America's first lady.
For shame, for shame.
A man is judged by the company he keeps. Obama keeps bad company.
But, if that isn't enough, what about Obama's own character?
After those same associations with men and women of questionable and unquestionably bad character became a political liability, he discarded them like a used condom. A man with character stands by his friends regardless. Especially if he believes they have been misjudged and/or impugned, as Obama has repeatedly stated.
How did Obama react to the criticism of his associates again?
Four times he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIP) as a State Senator in Illinois. That, in a nutshell, means he voted to allow newborn babies to die alone and untended. Four times!
He supports infanticide. I doubt Dr. King would have advocated that. A man of character doesn't kill babies.
Then there's the issue of Obama's courting and accepting campaign contributions from foreign contributors. Accepting contributions from foreigners (as in, not American citizens) is bad enough (and illegal), but many came from nations that actively support terrorism. Terrorism against America and her allies. A man of character would reject those contributions.
He trained workers for ACORN, an organization that not only practices voter fraud, they perfect it. A man of good character would distance himself from an organization like that, but not Obama. He embraced them.
Obama has advocated Marxist principles and suggested that America's Constitution is outdated. He has equated our Constitution with Nazi principles. An American President that espouses Marxist and anti-American philosophies is a President without character.
I am going to leave out the various subversive organizations and people that he represented as an attorney at law. Legal representation of scum is not automatically evidence of bad character.
But it has been, and can be argued that accepting those kinds of cases on a regular basis constitutes such evidence. And he has accepted many.
Now we come around again to my stated point:
Racism in America.
Barack Hussein Obama was not elected because of the content of his character. He was elected because he is black.
That is racism.
Many people would call that reverse racism, but that term would suggest whites are the only race capable of discriminating against other races. That is not true.
Racism is racism. The Merriam-Webster 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.
See? Blacks are as capable of racism as whites.
I'll repeat. Obama wasn't elected because he had good character. He was elected because of the color of his skin.
I don't think that was what Dr. King had in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
