"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~ Mark Twain
This story is the stupidest attack on a Conservative I've heard yet.
I don't believe the anonymous author of this article actually listened to the comments Rush made about this story.
Because he got it all wrong.
Listen for yourselves:
Not once did Rush say he believed the story. He did, however, mention the story has no sourcing data.
He did say, "[W]e have to hold out the possibility that this is not accurate".
He also said, "I have had this happen to me recently. I've had quotes attributed to me that were made up. And when it was pointed out to the media that these quotes were made up, they said, 'It doesn't matter. We know Limbaugh thinks it anyway.'"
(Obviously referring to the recent lies spread all over the internet and the broadcast media about certain made up statements falsely attributed to him)
And then, he mocked Dan Rather, by paraphrasing, almost word for word, the statement Dan Rather made when it was revealed he had reported a story based on forged documents, ie, "I don't care that these quotes are made up. I know Obama thinks it".
I don't know what the author of this blatantly leftist attack on Limbaugh was smoking, but I would have paid almost anything for a hit of it back in the 70's.
And, I don't blame the author for not supplying a byline. I'd be embarrassed, too.
One would have to do some amazing mental gymnastics to reach the conclusion Rush bought the story. In fact, it would seem the only person who actually bought it was Michael Leeden, the "obscure blogger" who first reported it, apparently thinking it was true.
In fact, Leeden admitted, according to the article, he thought it was true. "I failed to notice that one of the tags was 'satire,'" he wrote.
Well, I'm sure Mr. Leeden recognizes satire once he becomes aware of it, but the anonymous AP reporter apparently doesn't.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
I Still Don't Understand
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea...Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven... Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Matthew 18:6, 10, and 14
In my previous post, I stated I don't understand how Christians can support politicians who support abortion. I made my case.
Not only did I post it here on my blog, I also posted it as a Facebook note on my Facebook page. It was there that I received a response from the Liberal Christian point of view.
I said it was a response. It was not a convincing explanation of why some Christians embrace the "right to choose" ideology.
My Doctor Professor nephew Kevin (Liberal) attempted to enlighten me, but in my opinion, fell woefully short, which is somewhat surprising, since he is a college professor with a doctorate and everything. I would think he could have been much more convincing. Perhaps he doesn't believe his explanation himself. In the interest of brevity, I will spare both of my readers the entire exhaustive response he wrote.
I would like, however, to paste an excerpt or two from his diatribe so that my two readers will better understand my response to him which I have inserted in their entirety below.
My Doctor nephew Kevin said this first:
When I saw the title "What I Don't Understand," I knew that this would have to be a long Facebook note!
Bwah ha ha ha ha!
Just kidding. I know, this is a serious issue, but I just had to throw in a little (probably inappropriate) levity.
OK, that was funny, I admit. But then he went all Liberal on me, writing, among other things,
I do find myself wishing that anti-abortion conservatives would put as much energy into fighting other violations of the sanctity of life as they do into fighting for the criminalization of abortion... all they seem interested in is making sure that all these aborted fetuses get born, but when it comes to supporting them with things like healthcare, childcare, early childhood education, safe and affordable housing, job training and creation for the child's parents, public education, after-school programs, financial aid for poor teens seeking college education, etc., these conservative voices suddenly sing a very anti-life tune. I won't even get into how fiercely these so-called "pro-life" advocates support things like war, the death penalty, and all manner of practices that destroy the environment and threaten all of God's Creation.
That's just a teeny snippet of the response I received. I can't paste the entire conversation here. This post is already much too long. But, another relative of mine, my niece Lori, daughter of a different sibling, wrote, among other things, the following:
"First of all I'd like to say, Sorry Mom, but here is how I feel". (She is my sister's daughter, which makes me proud to know, at least my sister is against abortion)
Anyway, she also defended abortion but without presenting a convincing or logical argument. However, she can be excused for her inability to articulate her thoughts coherently. My nephew can't. He is a genius. Really.
She went on to write, "I do want to ask you to stop indicating that I am not a Christian just because I don't agree with you or because I voted for Obama."
Both Niece and Nephew mentioned an opposition to the death penalty, saying, in so many words, they believe execution to be inhumane.
Although my first response to Kevin's comments are (if I may say so myself) quite logical and well thought out, and should have been convincing, I will not post it here. This is my second response to their first responses:
(First statement responding to Niece Lori's assertion that I accused her of not being a Christian)"It is not my place to say whether anyone is a Christian or not, and I didn't. I said I don't understand how one can call himself a Christian and support the mass murder of innocent babies. I then said I know there are Christians that do. And, I am absolutely convinced that they are indeed Christians. As I said, I don't understand it, and I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me logically.
While I admire and respect Kevin for his intellect and education, I don't believe he is being intellectually honest in responding to my note. Common sense tells us that in order for a child to have a chance at a better education, a more fulfilling childhood, better childcare, better health care, job training etc, he must first have a chance at life. What chance does a dead baby have at any of those things?
Don't misunderstand me. I believe a woman has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to keep her pants on. She has the right to choose not to have pre-marital sex, or at least act wisely before she's ready to have a child. She has the right to choose abstinence. She also has the right to make lifestyle choices all the way from her own birth to her death. All decisions have consequences. Some have more consequences than others. Some have good consequences. Some have unfortunate consequences, but all decisions result in some form of consequences.
When one makes a decision, one must be prepared for the consequences involved in making that decision. If one is not capable of dealing with unfortunate consequences, than one should not make that decision. If a woman makes the unfortunate decision to do something that causes her to end up pregnant when she doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't get to take a mulligan. She must live with the consequences of her decision. That's called taking personal responsibility.
Now, before I am challenged with the inevitable question about cases of rape and incest, my answer remains the same. There is never an intellectually honest reason to abort a living human child. If a woman is raped, why punish the baby with execution? That doesn't make sense. If a woman becomes pregnant due to an incestuous relationship either with her consent or without, again I say, why punish the baby with execution? In neither case is the pregnancy the baby's fault.
Again, it's all about personal responsibility. Put it this way...If a two year old child suffers some calamity and is left permanently disabled as a result, would it be right for the child's parents to put the child to death to avoid taking responsibility for the care and nurturing of that child? Of course it wouldn't.
With abortion we have the exact same scenario with the only exception being that of the child's physical age. It is punishing the innocent so that the responsible party can spare himself a modicum of inconvenience. That is NOT taking personal responsibility.
I also find it dichotomous for one to object to executing a murderer on grounds that it is inhumane but doesn't have a problem killing unborn children who have done nothing to deserve death save being an inconvenience to his mother.
A murderer committed a crime. He deserves whatever punishment he gets for his transgressions. As I say, if he didn't want to face a just punishment, he shouldn't have committed the crime. After all, he most likely knows what would likely happen to him if he gets caught. And still he decides to commit the crime. How many people would he have to kill before his defenders would say he deserves what he gets?
If it is inhumane to take his life, how much more inhumane is it to take the life of a perfectly innocent baby?
And what about war? Is it inhumane to defend one's country against murderous savages who have every intention of wiping our country off the face of the earth? Again, which killing is more moral? The killing of a mortal enemy who will kill you or your family if not killed first, or killing an innocent baby in the womb before he has the chance to choose whether he wants to be a murderer or a terrorist or a brain surgeon or a teacher, etc?
It seems to me one does not have much faith in God or your fellow man if you think an unborn child doesn't stand any chance just because he may happen to be unwanted. the world is full of people who beat the odds to become successful in a veritable plethora of endeavors. They are written about in songs and in legends.
Why not give the innocent unborn child the opportunity to become someone.
Why not give him or her a chance?
I still don't get the logic".
In my previous post, I stated I don't understand how Christians can support politicians who support abortion. I made my case.
Not only did I post it here on my blog, I also posted it as a Facebook note on my Facebook page. It was there that I received a response from the Liberal Christian point of view.
I said it was a response. It was not a convincing explanation of why some Christians embrace the "right to choose" ideology.
My Doctor Professor nephew Kevin (Liberal) attempted to enlighten me, but in my opinion, fell woefully short, which is somewhat surprising, since he is a college professor with a doctorate and everything. I would think he could have been much more convincing. Perhaps he doesn't believe his explanation himself. In the interest of brevity, I will spare both of my readers the entire exhaustive response he wrote.
I would like, however, to paste an excerpt or two from his diatribe so that my two readers will better understand my response to him which I have inserted in their entirety below.
My Doctor nephew Kevin said this first:
When I saw the title "What I Don't Understand," I knew that this would have to be a long Facebook note!
Bwah ha ha ha ha!
Just kidding. I know, this is a serious issue, but I just had to throw in a little (probably inappropriate) levity.
OK, that was funny, I admit. But then he went all Liberal on me, writing, among other things,
I do find myself wishing that anti-abortion conservatives would put as much energy into fighting other violations of the sanctity of life as they do into fighting for the criminalization of abortion... all they seem interested in is making sure that all these aborted fetuses get born, but when it comes to supporting them with things like healthcare, childcare, early childhood education, safe and affordable housing, job training and creation for the child's parents, public education, after-school programs, financial aid for poor teens seeking college education, etc., these conservative voices suddenly sing a very anti-life tune. I won't even get into how fiercely these so-called "pro-life" advocates support things like war, the death penalty, and all manner of practices that destroy the environment and threaten all of God's Creation.
That's just a teeny snippet of the response I received. I can't paste the entire conversation here. This post is already much too long. But, another relative of mine, my niece Lori, daughter of a different sibling, wrote, among other things, the following:
"First of all I'd like to say, Sorry Mom, but here is how I feel". (She is my sister's daughter, which makes me proud to know, at least my sister is against abortion)
Anyway, she also defended abortion but without presenting a convincing or logical argument. However, she can be excused for her inability to articulate her thoughts coherently. My nephew can't. He is a genius. Really.
She went on to write, "I do want to ask you to stop indicating that I am not a Christian just because I don't agree with you or because I voted for Obama."
Both Niece and Nephew mentioned an opposition to the death penalty, saying, in so many words, they believe execution to be inhumane.
Although my first response to Kevin's comments are (if I may say so myself) quite logical and well thought out, and should have been convincing, I will not post it here. This is my second response to their first responses:
(First statement responding to Niece Lori's assertion that I accused her of not being a Christian)"It is not my place to say whether anyone is a Christian or not, and I didn't. I said I don't understand how one can call himself a Christian and support the mass murder of innocent babies. I then said I know there are Christians that do. And, I am absolutely convinced that they are indeed Christians. As I said, I don't understand it, and I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me logically.
While I admire and respect Kevin for his intellect and education, I don't believe he is being intellectually honest in responding to my note. Common sense tells us that in order for a child to have a chance at a better education, a more fulfilling childhood, better childcare, better health care, job training etc, he must first have a chance at life. What chance does a dead baby have at any of those things?
Don't misunderstand me. I believe a woman has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to keep her pants on. She has the right to choose not to have pre-marital sex, or at least act wisely before she's ready to have a child. She has the right to choose abstinence. She also has the right to make lifestyle choices all the way from her own birth to her death. All decisions have consequences. Some have more consequences than others. Some have good consequences. Some have unfortunate consequences, but all decisions result in some form of consequences.
When one makes a decision, one must be prepared for the consequences involved in making that decision. If one is not capable of dealing with unfortunate consequences, than one should not make that decision. If a woman makes the unfortunate decision to do something that causes her to end up pregnant when she doesn't want to be pregnant, she doesn't get to take a mulligan. She must live with the consequences of her decision. That's called taking personal responsibility.
Now, before I am challenged with the inevitable question about cases of rape and incest, my answer remains the same. There is never an intellectually honest reason to abort a living human child. If a woman is raped, why punish the baby with execution? That doesn't make sense. If a woman becomes pregnant due to an incestuous relationship either with her consent or without, again I say, why punish the baby with execution? In neither case is the pregnancy the baby's fault.
Again, it's all about personal responsibility. Put it this way...If a two year old child suffers some calamity and is left permanently disabled as a result, would it be right for the child's parents to put the child to death to avoid taking responsibility for the care and nurturing of that child? Of course it wouldn't.
With abortion we have the exact same scenario with the only exception being that of the child's physical age. It is punishing the innocent so that the responsible party can spare himself a modicum of inconvenience. That is NOT taking personal responsibility.
I also find it dichotomous for one to object to executing a murderer on grounds that it is inhumane but doesn't have a problem killing unborn children who have done nothing to deserve death save being an inconvenience to his mother.
A murderer committed a crime. He deserves whatever punishment he gets for his transgressions. As I say, if he didn't want to face a just punishment, he shouldn't have committed the crime. After all, he most likely knows what would likely happen to him if he gets caught. And still he decides to commit the crime. How many people would he have to kill before his defenders would say he deserves what he gets?
If it is inhumane to take his life, how much more inhumane is it to take the life of a perfectly innocent baby?
And what about war? Is it inhumane to defend one's country against murderous savages who have every intention of wiping our country off the face of the earth? Again, which killing is more moral? The killing of a mortal enemy who will kill you or your family if not killed first, or killing an innocent baby in the womb before he has the chance to choose whether he wants to be a murderer or a terrorist or a brain surgeon or a teacher, etc?
It seems to me one does not have much faith in God or your fellow man if you think an unborn child doesn't stand any chance just because he may happen to be unwanted. the world is full of people who beat the odds to become successful in a veritable plethora of endeavors. They are written about in songs and in legends.
Why not give the innocent unborn child the opportunity to become someone.
Why not give him or her a chance?
I still don't get the logic".
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What I Don't Understand
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." ~ Matthew 19:14
Do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand Christians who support political candidates who support abortion. More than that, really. I don't understand Christians who are Liberals.
Perhaps the most important issue that has come to distinguish a Liberal from a Conservative is abortion.
In my view, Christianity and a pro-choice ideology are incompatible with each other.
Christians are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life. How do Christian Liberal/Democrats justify their party's stance on abortion? Considering the Democrat's stance on this issue, I don't understand how Christians can justify being Democrats.
Is it possible to support a candidate without supporting a major plank in his platform?
Especially a candidate who may have a considerable impact on legislation that would directly strengthen or weaken Roe v Wade in the future?
I don't think it matters much what a candidate for state Treasurer, for instance, believes about abortion.
But a President, Governor, or United States legislator?
How can a Christian reconcile his belief in the sanctity of life with the taking of innocent human life within the womb? It just makes no sense to me.
Why would a Christian vote for a candidate who openly advocates a position which favors abortion?
Barack Hussein Obama not only favors abortion on demand, in any trimester, without reservations or conditions, but when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he voted against legislation that would save live babies born in spite of failed abortion attempts.
Get that?
Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
He thinks babies who survive abortion attempts should be neglected, and deprived of care, until they die.
How can Barack Obama call himself a Christian?
And, seriously, how could a Christian have voted for that man?
Christians who vote for such an obvious enemy to Christian values must be ignoring the abortion issue in favor of some other issue they consider more important. I believe they have a much too cavalier attitude regarding abortion.
Millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
That is a fact that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. How can any Christian consider that a trivial matter, not important enough to consider when choosing to vote for one candidate or another? If that is indeed their reasoning?
Here in Virginia, the race for Governor depends a great deal on the how the two candidates differ in their opinion of abortion. The Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, is actually using abortion as a wedge issue, advertising that his opponent, Bob McDonnell, has both introduced and supported legislation that would limit a "woman's right to choose". It is a major plank in his campaign platform. He would like you to vote against his opponent, based a great deal on this issue. That, and a thesis McDonnell wrote 20 years ago in graduate school, which really didn't contain anything objectionable to anyone who sincerely advocates Christian values.
In my opinion, Creigh Deeds is only hurting himself. Virginia has traditionally been a Conservative state. Yes, we have a Democrat Governor now, and Obama won Virginia in the last election, but I believe most Virginians are still vehemently opposed to abortion.
Deeds is at least 10 percentage points behind McDonnell in every poll. One would think he'd realize he's playing with fire.
And, make no mistake.
Abortion is a seminal issue with both Liberals and Conservatives.
One of the first questions Liberal media types ask Republican candidates for any office is, "Where do you stand in regard to abortion rights?" If a Republican says he is against abortion, the Liberal media uses this for ammunition to begin their onslaught of attacks against the Republican.
Democrats who are against abortion often keep a low profile on their view. If they campaigned on the right to life, they would lose their own party's support, but they often get Republicans votes.
Don't tell me that isn't significant.
Here's the wrap: If it's such an important issue (and I agree that it is), how can a Christian, in good conscience, support any candidate who favors abortion?
And frankly, although I am loathe to ask, how can one call himself a Christian who supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent pre-born babies?
And yet, I know without a doubt, there are Christians who do.
I just don't understand.
Do you know what I don't understand? I don't understand Christians who support political candidates who support abortion. More than that, really. I don't understand Christians who are Liberals.
Perhaps the most important issue that has come to distinguish a Liberal from a Conservative is abortion.
In my view, Christianity and a pro-choice ideology are incompatible with each other.
Christians are supposed to believe in the sanctity of life. How do Christian Liberal/Democrats justify their party's stance on abortion? Considering the Democrat's stance on this issue, I don't understand how Christians can justify being Democrats.
Is it possible to support a candidate without supporting a major plank in his platform?
Especially a candidate who may have a considerable impact on legislation that would directly strengthen or weaken Roe v Wade in the future?
I don't think it matters much what a candidate for state Treasurer, for instance, believes about abortion.
But a President, Governor, or United States legislator?
How can a Christian reconcile his belief in the sanctity of life with the taking of innocent human life within the womb? It just makes no sense to me.
Why would a Christian vote for a candidate who openly advocates a position which favors abortion?
Barack Hussein Obama not only favors abortion on demand, in any trimester, without reservations or conditions, but when he was a State Senator in Illinois, he voted against legislation that would save live babies born in spite of failed abortion attempts.
Get that?
Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
He thinks babies who survive abortion attempts should be neglected, and deprived of care, until they die.
How can Barack Obama call himself a Christian?
And, seriously, how could a Christian have voted for that man?
Christians who vote for such an obvious enemy to Christian values must be ignoring the abortion issue in favor of some other issue they consider more important. I believe they have a much too cavalier attitude regarding abortion.
Millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered since the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade.
That is a fact that, in my opinion, cannot be ignored. How can any Christian consider that a trivial matter, not important enough to consider when choosing to vote for one candidate or another? If that is indeed their reasoning?
Here in Virginia, the race for Governor depends a great deal on the how the two candidates differ in their opinion of abortion. The Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, is actually using abortion as a wedge issue, advertising that his opponent, Bob McDonnell, has both introduced and supported legislation that would limit a "woman's right to choose". It is a major plank in his campaign platform. He would like you to vote against his opponent, based a great deal on this issue. That, and a thesis McDonnell wrote 20 years ago in graduate school, which really didn't contain anything objectionable to anyone who sincerely advocates Christian values.
In my opinion, Creigh Deeds is only hurting himself. Virginia has traditionally been a Conservative state. Yes, we have a Democrat Governor now, and Obama won Virginia in the last election, but I believe most Virginians are still vehemently opposed to abortion.
Deeds is at least 10 percentage points behind McDonnell in every poll. One would think he'd realize he's playing with fire.
And, make no mistake.
Abortion is a seminal issue with both Liberals and Conservatives.
One of the first questions Liberal media types ask Republican candidates for any office is, "Where do you stand in regard to abortion rights?" If a Republican says he is against abortion, the Liberal media uses this for ammunition to begin their onslaught of attacks against the Republican.
Democrats who are against abortion often keep a low profile on their view. If they campaigned on the right to life, they would lose their own party's support, but they often get Republicans votes.
Don't tell me that isn't significant.
Here's the wrap: If it's such an important issue (and I agree that it is), how can a Christian, in good conscience, support any candidate who favors abortion?
And frankly, although I am loathe to ask, how can one call himself a Christian who supports the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent pre-born babies?
And yet, I know without a doubt, there are Christians who do.
I just don't understand.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
I'm Nominating Myself For Next Year's Nobel Peace Prize
"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
Barack Hussein Obama has another feather in his cap. Now, he can add a Nobel peace prize to his resume. I predict he will soon be adding the words, "I won the Nobel Peace prize" to his incessant reminders that he is the President.
When I first heard Barack Hussein Obama had won the Nobel peace prize, I was aghast. Had the Nobel prize committee lost their minds?
But then, I decided to objectively consider what Obama's qualifications might be to earn him such an accolade.
What are the qualifications? Who should win a peace prize? What traits should one possess that would qualify him to win a peace prize?
Obviously, it should be someone who accomplishes something extraordinary to establish peace. Someone who ends strife between two warring factions somewhere in the world, shouldn't it?
If I were awarding a peace prize, I believe I'd look for someone who did something substantial to peacefully settle a dispute or two.
What has Obama done that establishes peace?
I don't think it's so much an establishment of peace as a reluctance to make war that made the Nobel committee award the peace prize to Obama.
When Obama took office, the United States were engaged in two wars. One in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.
Did Obama somehow manage to convince either of our enemies in these two theaters of war to settle their differences with us peacefully?
Well, no, he didn't. We are still at war with terrorists factions in both countries.
But on the other hand, he didn't escalate the wars either. Perhaps that's why he won the peace prize.
Or maybe because he talks a good game. Talking about bringing peace to the world is really the only thing he's done to establish a peace. He hasn't done a thing to make it happen. And if anyone had the power to accomplish such a task, it seems it should surely be Obama.
But, that couldn't be it, could it? Anyone can talk about peace. It seems to me that there are thousands, perhaps millions of people in this world who are at least as deserving of being awarded the Nobel peace prize as Barack Hussein Obama. Thousands can talk about peace as eloquently as Obama. Why weren't any of those thousands considered?
Mark Levin nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Rush didn't win. I wonder why.
Rush Limbaugh is as deserving as Obama.
I myself, am just as deserving of the prize as Obama.
Witness this:
I want world peace.
There. Now, I am qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've done nothing to earn the award.
And neither has Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama has another feather in his cap. Now, he can add a Nobel peace prize to his resume. I predict he will soon be adding the words, "I won the Nobel Peace prize" to his incessant reminders that he is the President.
When I first heard Barack Hussein Obama had won the Nobel peace prize, I was aghast. Had the Nobel prize committee lost their minds?
But then, I decided to objectively consider what Obama's qualifications might be to earn him such an accolade.
What are the qualifications? Who should win a peace prize? What traits should one possess that would qualify him to win a peace prize?
Obviously, it should be someone who accomplishes something extraordinary to establish peace. Someone who ends strife between two warring factions somewhere in the world, shouldn't it?
If I were awarding a peace prize, I believe I'd look for someone who did something substantial to peacefully settle a dispute or two.
What has Obama done that establishes peace?
I don't think it's so much an establishment of peace as a reluctance to make war that made the Nobel committee award the peace prize to Obama.
When Obama took office, the United States were engaged in two wars. One in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.
Did Obama somehow manage to convince either of our enemies in these two theaters of war to settle their differences with us peacefully?
Well, no, he didn't. We are still at war with terrorists factions in both countries.
But on the other hand, he didn't escalate the wars either. Perhaps that's why he won the peace prize.
Or maybe because he talks a good game. Talking about bringing peace to the world is really the only thing he's done to establish a peace. He hasn't done a thing to make it happen. And if anyone had the power to accomplish such a task, it seems it should surely be Obama.
But, that couldn't be it, could it? Anyone can talk about peace. It seems to me that there are thousands, perhaps millions of people in this world who are at least as deserving of being awarded the Nobel peace prize as Barack Hussein Obama. Thousands can talk about peace as eloquently as Obama. Why weren't any of those thousands considered?
Mark Levin nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Rush didn't win. I wonder why.
Rush Limbaugh is as deserving as Obama.
I myself, am just as deserving of the prize as Obama.
Witness this:
I want world peace.
There. Now, I am qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've done nothing to earn the award.
And neither has Obama.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Guitar Lessons
"He says it's going to kill me, but he don't say when" ~ Luke Jordan
One of my favorite David Bromberg Songs, and how he plays it. I used to fiddle a bit with a guitar before I decided I had reached my level of incompetence. In fact, I once took a University guitar course taught by the famous Jerry Hahn, one of the best Jazz guitarists in the country.
Instead of fiddling, I should have learned to play it, because if I had, I might be able to play this tune.
The original version of this song was recorded by Luke Jordan, a black blues singer, I think sometime in the 20's. I have both versions on CD, and believe me, the version by Luke Jordan was hard to find.
Anyway, a couple of my occasional readers play guitar, and I thought they might want to try this.
Sorry, the phenomena I call Obamanation is starting to bore me. He's on TV EVERY BLESSED DAY!
When he does something extraordinarily bone headed, I will blog about it, but for now, really, whatever he does is just more of the same.
By the way, while I'm at it, here's a video of my guitar teacher, Jerry Hahn:
He doesn't sing. Believe me, he doesn't sing. The other students and I used to ask him how the lyrics went with the songs he was teaching us just to hear him try to sing. It was like nails on a blackboard to hear him sing.
One of my favorite David Bromberg Songs, and how he plays it. I used to fiddle a bit with a guitar before I decided I had reached my level of incompetence. In fact, I once took a University guitar course taught by the famous Jerry Hahn, one of the best Jazz guitarists in the country.
Instead of fiddling, I should have learned to play it, because if I had, I might be able to play this tune.
The original version of this song was recorded by Luke Jordan, a black blues singer, I think sometime in the 20's. I have both versions on CD, and believe me, the version by Luke Jordan was hard to find.
Anyway, a couple of my occasional readers play guitar, and I thought they might want to try this.
Sorry, the phenomena I call Obamanation is starting to bore me. He's on TV EVERY BLESSED DAY!
When he does something extraordinarily bone headed, I will blog about it, but for now, really, whatever he does is just more of the same.
By the way, while I'm at it, here's a video of my guitar teacher, Jerry Hahn:
He doesn't sing. Believe me, he doesn't sing. The other students and I used to ask him how the lyrics went with the songs he was teaching us just to hear him try to sing. It was like nails on a blackboard to hear him sing.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
What Was In My Head When I Awoke.
A couple of days ago, I saw just the beginning of a digital remake of "The Wizard of Oz" on Blu-Ray. While the twister was tearing up Dorothy's farm, this tune was playing. Without words, of course. I have known this song since the Animaniacs were on TV, but it wasn't until recently I realized this was the tune from the twister scene in "Wizard of OZ".
Now I can't get the song out of my head.
Now I can't get the song out of my head.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
If We Think We've Got Problems...
"Of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave." ~ John Ruskin
It's been a rough week at my house this past week. Wednesday night, about two and a half hours before October first, our cable went out. The cable company had cut our service off.
This would not have been a problem, ordinarily. We understand if we don't pay the bill we should be deprived of service (that's called acknowledging personal responsibility), but arrangements had already been made to pay the entire bill on Thursday, as soon as my wife got her Social Security check. Due to the failing economy coupled with big Government intrusion into my business, I have pretty much lost my income, and have had to take another job that pays poorly. But, it pays more than nothing. I got my first two week paycheck on Thursday.
But I digress.
The cable company had promised to wait for the payment, and they broke their promise.
Calls to the office were fruitless because, once we waded through the obligatory automated phone system prompts to state the purpose of our call, the department we wanted, our phone number, address, account number, verification of our account number, etc, we were eventually routed to the collection department, which was the wrong department, because we were only a month late and the collections department only has information on accounts over 2 months late.
Whew!
Early Thursday morning we awoke and found we had no hot water. The company who supplies our fuel oil to heat our house and our water had come out the day before to clean and do routine maintenance to our boiler. Apparently, the serviceman made some error, because the boiler stopped working after he left.
Again, calls to the company's service number were fruitless. When we called the number for service which was located on a sticker on the side of our boiler, we were informed, by recording, that the company's office was closed all day for inventory, and no one would be able to help us until tomorrow, October 2nd.
So, after we drove over to the Cable company's office and personally took care of the first problem, we had to drive over to the Boiler service company to personally talk to someone there who could come over and service the boiler, which, as I explained, had been in perfect working order before it was serviced.
I spent the remainder of the day waiting for a serviceman to come over to fix the problem. I was promised the boiler would be working in time for me to take a shower before I left for work. It wasn't, and I had wasted all that time waiting. So, I had to go to work unwashed.
By Thursday afternoon all electronic and fuel powered essential appliances had been restored to working order and all was right with our world.
Thursday evening, I bought my wife a new computer and myself a flat panel 20 inch monitor for mine.
So, as I said, it was a rough week. But that wasn't the worst.
Then came Friday.
As I was seated at my computer enjoying the finer clarity of my new monitor, and while my wife slept, I received a call from my second son in Wichita, Kansas, who was calling to inform me of shocking news.
He told me my oldest son's wife had passed away unexpectedly earlier Friday morning. She had surgery on the previous Friday to remove a growth on her spine. The doctors said the surgery was a success, and there was nothing more to be concerned about.
But, at approximately 4:00 Friday morning, after hospital personnel struggled for an hour to save her, she slipped away into eternity. She was 32.
She leaves behind her husband(my son Erik), and three children, ages 8, 6, and 14 months.
Because I had spent more money than I would have normally buying the computer and monitor, we cannot afford to go to the funeral, so we will have to send flowers. Had I known, I wouldn't have bought them, but hindsight is 20/20, and foresight is blind.
Erik has multiple medical problems of his own, including severe Epilepsy, Chronic Depression, and Paranoid Schizophrenia. I believe he also suffers from a bi-polar disorder, but I may be mistaken on that.
It would appear there is no positives to his condition, but my other son has assured me Erik has made substantial improvement since I saw him last Summer. Erik himself, the last time I talked with him over the phone, told me he still hears voices in his head, but at least he knows they aren't real, so he ignores them. That is a significant improvement over where he was medically and psychologically in previous years. Anthony, my other son, told me a few months ago that he predicts Erik will achieve normalcy within the next year.
But now, with the sudden passing of his wife, no one knows how he will deal. She was his rock.
Erik has already endured many more hardships and trials than probably about 98% of the world's population. It was his child that died a day after birth a few years ago. he and his wife, Stephanie were devastated. Their marriage almost ended as a result. Erik had a previous girlfriend before Stephanie that passed away suddenly, also.
He plans on raising his children himself, but will, of course, require help from his mother-in-law. No doubt my brother and sister who live in the Wichita area will lend a hand as well.
Most importantly, though, he will require prayer. A lot of earnest, sincere prayer. For him. For his children. For his support system.
I've seen prayer work. I know it does. He will get through this. Through the Grace and power of God.
Please pray for my son and his family.
It's been a rough week at my house this past week. Wednesday night, about two and a half hours before October first, our cable went out. The cable company had cut our service off.
This would not have been a problem, ordinarily. We understand if we don't pay the bill we should be deprived of service (that's called acknowledging personal responsibility), but arrangements had already been made to pay the entire bill on Thursday, as soon as my wife got her Social Security check. Due to the failing economy coupled with big Government intrusion into my business, I have pretty much lost my income, and have had to take another job that pays poorly. But, it pays more than nothing. I got my first two week paycheck on Thursday.
But I digress.
The cable company had promised to wait for the payment, and they broke their promise.
Calls to the office were fruitless because, once we waded through the obligatory automated phone system prompts to state the purpose of our call, the department we wanted, our phone number, address, account number, verification of our account number, etc, we were eventually routed to the collection department, which was the wrong department, because we were only a month late and the collections department only has information on accounts over 2 months late.
Whew!
Early Thursday morning we awoke and found we had no hot water. The company who supplies our fuel oil to heat our house and our water had come out the day before to clean and do routine maintenance to our boiler. Apparently, the serviceman made some error, because the boiler stopped working after he left.
Again, calls to the company's service number were fruitless. When we called the number for service which was located on a sticker on the side of our boiler, we were informed, by recording, that the company's office was closed all day for inventory, and no one would be able to help us until tomorrow, October 2nd.
So, after we drove over to the Cable company's office and personally took care of the first problem, we had to drive over to the Boiler service company to personally talk to someone there who could come over and service the boiler, which, as I explained, had been in perfect working order before it was serviced.
I spent the remainder of the day waiting for a serviceman to come over to fix the problem. I was promised the boiler would be working in time for me to take a shower before I left for work. It wasn't, and I had wasted all that time waiting. So, I had to go to work unwashed.
By Thursday afternoon all electronic and fuel powered essential appliances had been restored to working order and all was right with our world.
Thursday evening, I bought my wife a new computer and myself a flat panel 20 inch monitor for mine.
So, as I said, it was a rough week. But that wasn't the worst.
Then came Friday.
As I was seated at my computer enjoying the finer clarity of my new monitor, and while my wife slept, I received a call from my second son in Wichita, Kansas, who was calling to inform me of shocking news.
Erik and Stephanie (taken last summer)
He told me my oldest son's wife had passed away unexpectedly earlier Friday morning. She had surgery on the previous Friday to remove a growth on her spine. The doctors said the surgery was a success, and there was nothing more to be concerned about.
But, at approximately 4:00 Friday morning, after hospital personnel struggled for an hour to save her, she slipped away into eternity. She was 32.
She leaves behind her husband(my son Erik), and three children, ages 8, 6, and 14 months.
Because I had spent more money than I would have normally buying the computer and monitor, we cannot afford to go to the funeral, so we will have to send flowers. Had I known, I wouldn't have bought them, but hindsight is 20/20, and foresight is blind.
Erik has multiple medical problems of his own, including severe Epilepsy, Chronic Depression, and Paranoid Schizophrenia. I believe he also suffers from a bi-polar disorder, but I may be mistaken on that.
It would appear there is no positives to his condition, but my other son has assured me Erik has made substantial improvement since I saw him last Summer. Erik himself, the last time I talked with him over the phone, told me he still hears voices in his head, but at least he knows they aren't real, so he ignores them. That is a significant improvement over where he was medically and psychologically in previous years. Anthony, my other son, told me a few months ago that he predicts Erik will achieve normalcy within the next year.
But now, with the sudden passing of his wife, no one knows how he will deal. She was his rock.
Erik has already endured many more hardships and trials than probably about 98% of the world's population. It was his child that died a day after birth a few years ago. he and his wife, Stephanie were devastated. Their marriage almost ended as a result. Erik had a previous girlfriend before Stephanie that passed away suddenly, also.
He plans on raising his children himself, but will, of course, require help from his mother-in-law. No doubt my brother and sister who live in the Wichita area will lend a hand as well.
Most importantly, though, he will require prayer. A lot of earnest, sincere prayer. For him. For his children. For his support system.
I've seen prayer work. I know it does. He will get through this. Through the Grace and power of God.
Please pray for my son and his family.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Liberal
"Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung." ~ Sir Walter Scott
The preceding poem describes a man who has forsaken his country, who has demonstrated his hatred for freedom and liberty, a man who has embraced our enemies, and rejected our allies.
A man named Barack Hussein Obama.
In a comment on my last post some anonymous commenter who is too cowardly and/or too stupid to even create a name, posted this comment in response to American patriot and veteran Trader Rick's comment:
"oBAMA HAS COMMITTED tREASON, TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN. caN WE NOT TRY HIM AND HANG HIM OR SHOOT HIM?"
I've just forwarded this to the Secret Service. Good luck!"
Granted, Rick's comment was a little over the top, but it was a comment born of frustration and a general feeling of hopelessness created by the Marxist policies of Barack Hussein Obama. He sees, as I do, the systematic destruction of the very principles which made the United States of America the greatest, strongest, and freest country on Earth.
A destruction fomented by Barack Hussein Obama.
This is my response to "anonymous":
Sir or Madam, before you attack Conservatives over a few sporadic overzealous comments and placards that Liberally biased media type people claim is prevalent at various rallies across the United States, perhaps you should watch the following video:
h/t Joe-Joe Politico
I'm thinking if the Secret Service did nothing about the Liberal's vitreous attacks labeling George W. Bush as Hitler and their outright unconcealed death threats directed at him, I don't think Rick has anything to fear from your classless and cowardly threats against him.
You, on the other hand, should seriously consider professional counseling.
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung." ~ Sir Walter Scott
The preceding poem describes a man who has forsaken his country, who has demonstrated his hatred for freedom and liberty, a man who has embraced our enemies, and rejected our allies.
A man named Barack Hussein Obama.
In a comment on my last post some anonymous commenter who is too cowardly and/or too stupid to even create a name, posted this comment in response to American patriot and veteran Trader Rick's comment:
"oBAMA HAS COMMITTED tREASON, TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN. caN WE NOT TRY HIM AND HANG HIM OR SHOOT HIM?"
I've just forwarded this to the Secret Service. Good luck!"
Granted, Rick's comment was a little over the top, but it was a comment born of frustration and a general feeling of hopelessness created by the Marxist policies of Barack Hussein Obama. He sees, as I do, the systematic destruction of the very principles which made the United States of America the greatest, strongest, and freest country on Earth.
A destruction fomented by Barack Hussein Obama.
This is my response to "anonymous":
Sir or Madam, before you attack Conservatives over a few sporadic overzealous comments and placards that Liberally biased media type people claim is prevalent at various rallies across the United States, perhaps you should watch the following video:
h/t Joe-Joe Politico
I'm thinking if the Secret Service did nothing about the Liberal's vitreous attacks labeling George W. Bush as Hitler and their outright unconcealed death threats directed at him, I don't think Rick has anything to fear from your classless and cowardly threats against him.
You, on the other hand, should seriously consider professional counseling.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The New Leader Of The Free World
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" ~ Edmund Burke
Friday, Barack Hussein Obama stood before the United Nations assembly and, as he is wont to do, apologized for America, and then proceeded to announce he intends to make the United States virtually defenseless against attacks from hostile nations by promising the world he is going to get rid of our nuclear arsenal.
He did not get the same assurances from the other nations.
Well, he may have, but there is no evidence they would tell him the truth. There is a strong possibility, however, that Obama would naively believe them if they did.
After all, we have heard these promises before, haven't we? Think North Korea, The Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, etc.
Libya's Moamar Quaddafi also spoke at the United Nations, at first praising Obama and then, attacking the United Nations.
What's wrong with this picture?
The same thing that's wrong with Obama bowing to a Saudi king, embracing Hugo Chavez, and supporting an ousted Honduran Marxist dictator, of course.
Obama praises any and all Marxist dictators around the world, and, at the same time, accuses Israel of maintaining "illegitimate settlements" in the Gaza strip.
This, coming from a man who claims he is a Christian.
As any Christian with even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of Israel knows, the Israelis are God's chosen people, and the Gaza strip is included in the land God gave Israel.
There can be no more legitimate claim to any land than this.
No one may usurp God's authority, nor can anyone take from anyone else what God has given them.
Obama, if indeed he is a Christian and a God fearing man, as he says, should know this.
Why then, does he reject Israel?
Additionally, the Islamo-Nazi Presidential figurehead of Iran, Mahmoud Achmadinajhad, addressed the assembly and continued his oft repeated claims that the holocaust never happened and reminded the world that his mission is to wipe Israel off the map.
Obama, by his conspicuous silence, gave his assent to this madman.
Then, the leader of the free world stepped to the podium to speak, and he pulled no punches:
He also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president "legitimacy" just six decades after the Holocaust.
"What a disgrace," Netanyahu said. "What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Recently, the United Nations so-called "Human Rights Council", which includes among it's membership most of the worlds most notorious human rights abusing nations, issued a report that condemned Israel for its defense of their God-given legitimate settlements in the Gaza Strip last January.
"What a travesty," Netanyahu said. "Israel justly defended itself against terror."
He said the latest report presents a test to the international community: "Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Benjamin Netanyahu stood up to the world. He did not back down. He stood brave and defiant in the face of an overwhelming disapproving body.
He spoke the truth.
This is a trait exhibited only by true leaders. A leader who does not cower before Fascist dictators and corrupt nations.
A man with courage and integrity.
In short, Netanyahu is the polar opposite of Barack Hussein Obama.
While Netanytahu stands for liberty and freedom, Obama panders to the Marxist, oppressive dictators and Islamo-Nazis, and insults America's strongest allies.
Liberals, Marxists, Socialists, Communists (but I repeat myself) like to call Barack Hussein Obama the leader of the free world. And, indeed, there is no doubt Obama wants to be the leader of the entire world.
But he is neither the leader of the free world or the entire world. He is an embarrassment to the United States.
A narcissistic, incompetent, naive buffoon.
Mark Levin says Netanyahu is the leader of the free world.
I agree.
Friday, Barack Hussein Obama stood before the United Nations assembly and, as he is wont to do, apologized for America, and then proceeded to announce he intends to make the United States virtually defenseless against attacks from hostile nations by promising the world he is going to get rid of our nuclear arsenal.
He did not get the same assurances from the other nations.
Well, he may have, but there is no evidence they would tell him the truth. There is a strong possibility, however, that Obama would naively believe them if they did.
After all, we have heard these promises before, haven't we? Think North Korea, The Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, etc.
Libya's Moamar Quaddafi also spoke at the United Nations, at first praising Obama and then, attacking the United Nations.
What's wrong with this picture?
The same thing that's wrong with Obama bowing to a Saudi king, embracing Hugo Chavez, and supporting an ousted Honduran Marxist dictator, of course.
Obama praises any and all Marxist dictators around the world, and, at the same time, accuses Israel of maintaining "illegitimate settlements" in the Gaza strip.
This, coming from a man who claims he is a Christian.
As any Christian with even a rudimentary knowledge of the history of Israel knows, the Israelis are God's chosen people, and the Gaza strip is included in the land God gave Israel.
There can be no more legitimate claim to any land than this.
No one may usurp God's authority, nor can anyone take from anyone else what God has given them.
Obama, if indeed he is a Christian and a God fearing man, as he says, should know this.
Why then, does he reject Israel?
Additionally, the Islamo-Nazi Presidential figurehead of Iran, Mahmoud Achmadinajhad, addressed the assembly and continued his oft repeated claims that the holocaust never happened and reminded the world that his mission is to wipe Israel off the map.
Obama, by his conspicuous silence, gave his assent to this madman.
Then, the leader of the free world stepped to the podium to speak, and he pulled no punches:
"To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, said.
He also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president "legitimacy" just six decades after the Holocaust.
"What a disgrace," Netanyahu said. "What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
Recently, the United Nations so-called "Human Rights Council", which includes among it's membership most of the worlds most notorious human rights abusing nations, issued a report that condemned Israel for its defense of their God-given legitimate settlements in the Gaza Strip last January.
"What a travesty," Netanyahu said. "Israel justly defended itself against terror."
He said the latest report presents a test to the international community: "Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?"
Benjamin Netanyahu stood up to the world. He did not back down. He stood brave and defiant in the face of an overwhelming disapproving body.
He spoke the truth.
This is a trait exhibited only by true leaders. A leader who does not cower before Fascist dictators and corrupt nations.
A man with courage and integrity.
In short, Netanyahu is the polar opposite of Barack Hussein Obama.
While Netanytahu stands for liberty and freedom, Obama panders to the Marxist, oppressive dictators and Islamo-Nazis, and insults America's strongest allies.
Liberals, Marxists, Socialists, Communists (but I repeat myself) like to call Barack Hussein Obama the leader of the free world. And, indeed, there is no doubt Obama wants to be the leader of the entire world.
But he is neither the leader of the free world or the entire world. He is an embarrassment to the United States.
A narcissistic, incompetent, naive buffoon.
Mark Levin says Netanyahu is the leader of the free world.
I agree.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I Love That Big Band Sound!
Saturday, I was flipping channels on the Television, and came across PBS, which was airing one of their incessant pledge drives, and featuring big band music from the forties.
I like this music and I really enjoyed the program, except when they interrupted it to ask for money. Not that I would mind giving money to them for this kind of programming, but in truth, the only time they air such great programs is when they have pledge drives. Then, they lie to you and say this is the kind of programs we will get if we donate money to them.
It's just not true. When they aren't having pledge drives, the majority of their programming is boring. And insufferably Liberal, like Bill Moyers.
Anyway, I enjoyed the music and I went to youtube to find one of the songs featured on the program to share with both of my readers.
Here it is:
I like this music and I really enjoyed the program, except when they interrupted it to ask for money. Not that I would mind giving money to them for this kind of programming, but in truth, the only time they air such great programs is when they have pledge drives. Then, they lie to you and say this is the kind of programs we will get if we donate money to them.
It's just not true. When they aren't having pledge drives, the majority of their programming is boring. And insufferably Liberal, like Bill Moyers.
Anyway, I enjoyed the music and I went to youtube to find one of the songs featured on the program to share with both of my readers.
Here it is:
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Oh Yeah? Well, My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad!
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." ~ Jonathan Swift
Recently I noticed an article by the AP entitled, "Breaking: Glenn Beck guilty of rape and murder?".
Disclaimer: The article I linked to above is not the article I first noticed. But the AP article got their info from this article.
You always know when a Conservative is getting under the Liberals skin when they start circulating vicious baseless rumors about him, such as the above silly allegation.
Every Liberal who ever comments here or at other Conservative blogs on my blogroll has taken their shots at Beck, as well.
Personally, although I enjoy listening to Beck's radio show, I find it rather painful to watch his television program. His goofy antics while in the midst of conducting serious interviews with guest experts, even those experts sympathetic to his point of view, I find particularly annoying. It makes me tend to question his sincerity.
Regardless of how I perceive him, I stop short of accusing him of inciting dissent for dissent's sake.
I believe Obama invites dissent himself by his policies and associations.
Beck merely asks questions.
Obama's defenders give credence to Becks insinuations by their rush to defend and deny them.
If the opening quotation by Jonathon Swift is true, Liberal dunces must indeed take Beck very seriously as they appear to be wetting their pants in fear of him and his investigations of Obama's questionable associations.
Actually, if they weren't so serious about bringing Beck down, this whole ridiculous attempt to attack the messenger would be laughable.
They remind me of schoolchildren on the playground taunting each other while being afraid and/or unable to back up their taunts with action.
"Your mother wears combat boots! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Additionally, the most recent personal attacks involve baseless and indefensible charges of racism.
Of these recent charges, Lone Ranger points out that the NAACP was founded by Republicans, the KKK by Democrats. And as he says, 'Nuff said!"
If these shameless, reprobate, Liberal apologists had anything concrete on Beck, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or any other Conservative who is routinely kicking the butts of all the commentators at MSNBC, they would surely have found a sympathetic ear in any one of dozens of politically ambitious Democrat prosecutors such as Mike Nifong, etc. by now.
But they can't, because there is nothing to be found.
So, after failing to find any adhesive dirt on these Conservatives, they resort to the next best thing:
Baseless, fictional, personal attacks.
Recently I noticed an article by the AP entitled, "Breaking: Glenn Beck guilty of rape and murder?".
Disclaimer: The article I linked to above is not the article I first noticed. But the AP article got their info from this article.
The photographer who took this picture for Time Magazine, Jill Greenberg, specializes in making conservatives look bad. h/t Jim O'Sullivan
You always know when a Conservative is getting under the Liberals skin when they start circulating vicious baseless rumors about him, such as the above silly allegation.
Every Liberal who ever comments here or at other Conservative blogs on my blogroll has taken their shots at Beck, as well.
Personally, although I enjoy listening to Beck's radio show, I find it rather painful to watch his television program. His goofy antics while in the midst of conducting serious interviews with guest experts, even those experts sympathetic to his point of view, I find particularly annoying. It makes me tend to question his sincerity.
Regardless of how I perceive him, I stop short of accusing him of inciting dissent for dissent's sake.
I believe Obama invites dissent himself by his policies and associations.
Beck merely asks questions.
Obama's defenders give credence to Becks insinuations by their rush to defend and deny them.
If the opening quotation by Jonathon Swift is true, Liberal dunces must indeed take Beck very seriously as they appear to be wetting their pants in fear of him and his investigations of Obama's questionable associations.
Actually, if they weren't so serious about bringing Beck down, this whole ridiculous attempt to attack the messenger would be laughable.
They remind me of schoolchildren on the playground taunting each other while being afraid and/or unable to back up their taunts with action.
"Your mother wears combat boots! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Additionally, the most recent personal attacks involve baseless and indefensible charges of racism.
Of these recent charges, Lone Ranger points out that the NAACP was founded by Republicans, the KKK by Democrats. And as he says, 'Nuff said!"
If these shameless, reprobate, Liberal apologists had anything concrete on Beck, or Limbaugh, or Hannity, or any other Conservative who is routinely kicking the butts of all the commentators at MSNBC, they would surely have found a sympathetic ear in any one of dozens of politically ambitious Democrat prosecutors such as Mike Nifong, etc. by now.
But they can't, because there is nothing to be found.
So, after failing to find any adhesive dirt on these Conservatives, they resort to the next best thing:
Baseless, fictional, personal attacks.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Mary Travers - November 9, 1936 – September 16, 2009
"The end crowns all,
And that old common arbitrator, Time,
Will one day end it." ~ William Shakespeare
One third of a Folk Music trio that I grew up listening to has passed over.
Mary Travers is dead at the age of 72.
And that old common arbitrator, Time,
Will one day end it." ~ William Shakespeare
One third of a Folk Music trio that I grew up listening to has passed over.
Mary Travers is dead at the age of 72.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Obama Tells The Truth For Once
Kanye West is a jackass" ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Finally! Obama gets something right and the State run media rushes to cover it up for him.
That's right. ABC made sure his record stays at 100% wrong on everything.
This morning, when I logged on, and the AIM home page lit up my monitor screen, there in front of my face was this story.
Now, I don't watch fluffy awards shows, especially since there are so danged many of them and I see no point in watching entertainers pat each other on the back.
Besides, they are really only popularity contests anyway. Who cares? I have better things to do with my time.
But, on the VMA (I think that stands for Video Music Academy) awards show the other day, infamous racist and so-called "hip hop artist" (as if it takes talent to recite bad poetry with bad syncopation and horrific rhymes to a drum beat), Kanye West interrupted fledgling country music star Taylor Swift's VMA acceptance speech to proclaim (in his educated opinion) Beyonce Knowles' video was better than Swifts.
This is the same Kanye West, who went off script during a live broadcast of a variety show that was put together for the purpose of raising money for the victims of hurricane Katrina. Remember that? He grabbed the mic, and angrily proclaimed, "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
Now, during an interview with an unnamed CNBC reporter, Obama casually mentioned, "Kanye West is a jackass", which naturally horrified the Obama worshiping suck-ups in the State run media.
We can't have a President saying negative things about a black man, can we?
Especially if it's the truth!
ABC's Terry Moran apparently didn't think Obama's remark would do much damage to Obama's sterling reputation, because he quickly dashed off a twitter note telling his twitterees all about the gaffe.
Gaffe?
Obama told the truth! West IS a jackass!
An hour later, as Moran sat basking in the glow of his presumptive scoop, someone must have revealed to him that his twitter post revealed Obama had had a moment of clarity in discussing the meaningless awards show.
So, ABC subsequently released this statement, in effect, apologizing for telling the truth about Dear Leader:
More evidence that journalism has died in America.
Finally! Obama gets something right and the State run media rushes to cover it up for him.
That's right. ABC made sure his record stays at 100% wrong on everything.
This morning, when I logged on, and the AIM home page lit up my monitor screen, there in front of my face was this story.
Now, I don't watch fluffy awards shows, especially since there are so danged many of them and I see no point in watching entertainers pat each other on the back.
Besides, they are really only popularity contests anyway. Who cares? I have better things to do with my time.
But, on the VMA (I think that stands for Video Music Academy) awards show the other day, infamous racist and so-called "hip hop artist" (as if it takes talent to recite bad poetry with bad syncopation and horrific rhymes to a drum beat), Kanye West interrupted fledgling country music star Taylor Swift's VMA acceptance speech to proclaim (in his educated opinion) Beyonce Knowles' video was better than Swifts.
This is the same Kanye West, who went off script during a live broadcast of a variety show that was put together for the purpose of raising money for the victims of hurricane Katrina. Remember that? He grabbed the mic, and angrily proclaimed, "George Bush doesn't care about black people."
Now, during an interview with an unnamed CNBC reporter, Obama casually mentioned, "Kanye West is a jackass", which naturally horrified the Obama worshiping suck-ups in the State run media.
We can't have a President saying negative things about a black man, can we?
Especially if it's the truth!
ABC's Terry Moran apparently didn't think Obama's remark would do much damage to Obama's sterling reputation, because he quickly dashed off a twitter note telling his twitterees all about the gaffe.
Gaffe?
Obama told the truth! West IS a jackass!
An hour later, as Moran sat basking in the glow of his presumptive scoop, someone must have revealed to him that his twitter post revealed Obama had had a moment of clarity in discussing the meaningless awards show.
So, ABC subsequently released this statement, in effect, apologizing for telling the truth about Dear Leader:
"This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC".
More evidence that journalism has died in America.
Monday, September 14, 2009
A New Declaration Of Independence
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." ~ Thomas Jefferson
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He (Obama) has rejected the will of the people.
He is attempting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic by attempting to form a Socialist Union with himself as Dictator.
He has offered aid and comfort to our enemies.
He has usurped the powers of our Constitutionally formed Congress, by installing policy makers (or "czars") who are unaccountable to the people and the duly elected Congress.
He has combined with others (Principally, certain equally despotic Democrat legislators) to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For altering fundamentally the form of our Governments.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to Barack Hussein Obama, and that all political connection between them and Barack Hussein Obama, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
We must do whatever we can to protect our freedom and liberty. We must first ask Obama, politely, to resign. If that doesn't work, we must initiate impeachment proceedings against him to have him removed.
If that doesn't work, we must be prepared to shed blood in defense of our Republic and our liberty.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He (Obama) has rejected the will of the people.
He is attempting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic by attempting to form a Socialist Union with himself as Dictator.
He has offered aid and comfort to our enemies.
He has usurped the powers of our Constitutionally formed Congress, by installing policy makers (or "czars") who are unaccountable to the people and the duly elected Congress.
He has combined with others (Principally, certain equally despotic Democrat legislators) to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For altering fundamentally the form of our Governments.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to Barack Hussein Obama, and that all political connection between them and Barack Hussein Obama, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
We must do whatever we can to protect our freedom and liberty. We must first ask Obama, politely, to resign. If that doesn't work, we must initiate impeachment proceedings against him to have him removed.
If that doesn't work, we must be prepared to shed blood in defense of our Republic and our liberty.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Pal-Yat-Chee
Yesterday, Lone Ranger posted one of his famous "What's in my Head" entries, a video featuring the original Spike Jones and his rather unusual orchestra. That got me thinking of another song recorded by Homer and Jethro long ago, when the earth was cooling, also featuring Spike Jones. So, I went to Youtube and found it. It is a spoof of Ruggero Leoncavallo's famous opus, Pagliacci. Here it is, for your enjoyment:
Back to more serious subjects anon. And on and on and on.
Back to more serious subjects anon. And on and on and on.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Don't Cry, Mommy. I'm Only Bleeding
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." ~ Dinesh D'Souza
September 11, 2009
I was going to post a very moving and touching tribute to the memories of those Americans whose lives were taken prematurely on September eleventh, two thousand and one, at the Pentagon in Washington, the World Trade Center in New York City, and that nondescript field in Pennsylvania.
I was going to write a blog entry about the significance of the terrorist attacks on America on that fateful day.
I was going to remind both of my readers how that attack 8 years ago today had changed America. How it intensified our resolve to fight tyranny and hatred all over the world. How we responded to the attacks with renewed patriotism, and how we Americans, as one people, with one voice, rose up in unity to protect our rights as free people to defend our country and her people against fanatical Islamic terrorists.
I was going to write an inspirational post reminding my two readers that America is still the greatest country in the world. Self-governing and free.
Yes, I was going to create a blog post about all those things, and it would have been both moving and encouraging.
But, like most Americans (or so it appears), I have forgotten that anything happened on that day.
September 11, 2009
I was going to post a very moving and touching tribute to the memories of those Americans whose lives were taken prematurely on September eleventh, two thousand and one, at the Pentagon in Washington, the World Trade Center in New York City, and that nondescript field in Pennsylvania.
I was going to write a blog entry about the significance of the terrorist attacks on America on that fateful day.
I was going to remind both of my readers how that attack 8 years ago today had changed America. How it intensified our resolve to fight tyranny and hatred all over the world. How we responded to the attacks with renewed patriotism, and how we Americans, as one people, with one voice, rose up in unity to protect our rights as free people to defend our country and her people against fanatical Islamic terrorists.
I was going to write an inspirational post reminding my two readers that America is still the greatest country in the world. Self-governing and free.
Yes, I was going to create a blog post about all those things, and it would have been both moving and encouraging.
But, like most Americans (or so it appears), I have forgotten that anything happened on that day.
Monday, September 07, 2009
"Uh...What Did He Say?"
"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five." ~ Groucho Marx
Tomorrow is the big day, when Barack Hussein Obama beams his big speech into the schools across America.
I have heard that he intends to make this an Obama worship indoctrination opportunity, and I have also heard that the original speech will not be presented as originally planned due to various concerns and objections from the parents and sometimes, even the teachers and school administrators themselves.
I have not the time nor the inclination to do research on whether either is true.
And, frankly, it doesn't matter in either case.
I'm really not worried that Obama will profoundly influence the children of America into doing (or not doing) any kind of nefarious or righteous deed in the name of Obama.
If Obama thinks he's going to recruit these children into his Socialist church, he doesn't know kids very well.
After all, we're talking about schoolchildren here.
I have five kids. They are all grown now. But I still remember how difficult it was to get them to listen to anything that anyone of authority had to say. My kids are still making stupid decisions that they wouldn't have made if they had simply listened to me when they were "impressionable".
Children of school age, until they are into their twenties, have an attention span of about a minute and a half, if that long.
It would take the faith of Abraham to believe children with that short of an attention span will sit in rapt attention to a speaker who will "uh", "um", "ah", stutter, and stumble his way through a boring monotone speech talking about subjects in which they aren't the least bit interested.
So, while Obama's smiling image is being beamed across the country in High Definition living color to millions of children from Kindergarten to twelth grade, the children he's talking to will be fidgeting, fighting, talking, laughing, crying, flirting, etc.
Anything but listening.
Tomorrow is the big day, when Barack Hussein Obama beams his big speech into the schools across America.
I have heard that he intends to make this an Obama worship indoctrination opportunity, and I have also heard that the original speech will not be presented as originally planned due to various concerns and objections from the parents and sometimes, even the teachers and school administrators themselves.
I have not the time nor the inclination to do research on whether either is true.
And, frankly, it doesn't matter in either case.
I'm really not worried that Obama will profoundly influence the children of America into doing (or not doing) any kind of nefarious or righteous deed in the name of Obama.
If Obama thinks he's going to recruit these children into his Socialist church, he doesn't know kids very well.
After all, we're talking about schoolchildren here.
I have five kids. They are all grown now. But I still remember how difficult it was to get them to listen to anything that anyone of authority had to say. My kids are still making stupid decisions that they wouldn't have made if they had simply listened to me when they were "impressionable".
Children of school age, until they are into their twenties, have an attention span of about a minute and a half, if that long.
It would take the faith of Abraham to believe children with that short of an attention span will sit in rapt attention to a speaker who will "uh", "um", "ah", stutter, and stumble his way through a boring monotone speech talking about subjects in which they aren't the least bit interested.
So, while Obama's smiling image is being beamed across the country in High Definition living color to millions of children from Kindergarten to twelth grade, the children he's talking to will be fidgeting, fighting, talking, laughing, crying, flirting, etc.
Anything but listening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
